Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing

Sir William Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the achievement of Professor Vladimir Zobolofsky, President of the Ukrainian Academy of Architecture, in the manufacture of china building bricks whereby 96,000 houses had been built in one year; and if he will consider similar plans to secure the same achievement for Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): On the information presently before me I am satisfied that this method of building is not one which could be adopted in Scotland, but perhaps the hon. Member would let me have any further details in his possession.

Sir W. Darling: Is the Under-Secrctary of State aware that in an official document from the Russian Embassy delivered to me at this House particulars were given of this great Soviet achievement?

Mr. Buchanan: So far as we have examined it, we are not satisfied that this method is suitable for Scotland, but if the hon. Member has any further information I will be pleased to examine it.

Mr. Malcolm Macmillan: Will the Minister assure us that he will take full cognisance of all the political associations of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling)?

Lieut.-Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland

how many houses have been completed in Glasgow since 1st June, 1945; and how many have been started.

Mr. Buchanan: Since 1st June, 1945, 239 permanent and 67 temporary houses have been completed. The numbers now under construction are 647 permanent and 164 temporary. Those started since 1st June, including some houses which have been completed, number 351 permanent and 212 temporary.

Lieut.-Colonel Hutchison: May I ask the Minister whether the houses he designates as completed are in fact occupied?

Mr. Buchanan: "Completed" means that so far as temporary houses are concerned we have completed our work and handed them over to the local authority. With regard to permanent houses, I anticipate that they will all be occupied.

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright reconditioned under the Rural Housing Acts.

Mr. Buchanan: At 30th June, 1945, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,025 houses had been reconditioned under these Acts in the Stewartry.

Mr. McKie: Is the Minister not now impressed by the fact that the deleterious effect of the Government of which he is a distinguished Member is bound to have effect in discontinuing rural housing in the Stewartry?

Mr. Buchanan: It all depends upon the angle from which you look at this; for instance, if you found out that 119 were reconditioned by owner-occupiers, the total grant being £10,430, and 906 by the landlords, who were getting £84,000, that might alter the hon. Member's view.

Mr. A. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of serviced sites for temporary houses in the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw; the number of temporary houses supplied to date; and the estimated rate of future delivery.

Mr. Buchanan: There are serviced sites for 206 temporary houses in the Burgh; 56 temporary houses are under construction and 43 additional houses have been delivered to the site. For the sites already serviced, it is estimated that deliveries will be made at the rate of 20 houses per week.

II. Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the employment of large numbers of workmen on the sub-dividing of large private houses is preventing the corporation of Edinburgh from completing the work on municipal housing schemes; if he is satisfied with the way in which licences are granted in Edinburgh for private building; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gilzean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that licences continue to be freely given in Edinburgh for houses for sale and for garages, whilst labour is unavailable for the purpose of building houses to let; and will he take steps to remedy this position.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that large derequisitioned houses in Edinburgh are being sold and sub-divided into flats for sale at speculative prices; that plenty of labour is available for this work whilst labour cannot be obtained to erect corporation houses; and will he take steps to ensure that the Government's policy for houses to let is implemented.

Mr. Buchanan: I am informed that licences for the sub-division of 53 large houses and for the provision of five garages in Edinburgh have been granted by the corporation and that work has not yet been begun on about 400 new-houses for which tenders have been approved. I have accordingly at once asked the corporation to consider the suspension or reduction of the licensing of works of sub-division until better progress has been achieved with their own housing schemes.

Mr. Hoy: Is the Minister aware that there are 146 houses at present under construction which are being held up because of the lack of plasterers?

Mr. Buchanan: As the hon. Member has heard from my answer, I have asked Edinburgh to reconsider this matter with a view to seeing if some of the labour cannot get on with the housing scheme.

Mr. Willis: Is the Minister aware that sub-divided houses are being made to sell at prices between £2,000 and £3,000, and that this seems to be directly against the aim of the Government, which is to obtain houses at a cost of £1,200 and produce houses for less?

Mr. Gilzean: Will the Minister take steps to implement the last part of my Question; will he take steps to remedy this?

Mr. Buchanan: The position is that Edinburgh Corporation, which is the licensing authority at the present time, has been written to asking it to reconsider the matter. We had better await Edinburgh's reply before we can consider what further action we can take.

Sir W. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the winter season particularly, in Scotland he will get more housing accommodation made available by the sub-division of existing houses than the erection of new houses, and will the Minister further that policy?

Mr. Buchanan: I will only say that. I think that good progress has been made in Scotland, in certain parts, particularly in permanent housing, and I hope that Edinburgh will not lag in that particular matter.

Mr. Willis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the latest available figures of the total number of dwelling houses made available by requisitioning in Edinburgh and Glasgow, respectively.

Mr. Buchanan: Up to 30th November, 34 houses had been requisitioned in Edinburgh for conversion into 55 separate dwellings. The corresponding figures for Glasgow are 198 and 575 respectively.

Mr. Willis: Will my hon. Friend examine the situation as revealed by these figures, and take all possible steps to ensure that the Edinburgh Corporation uses its vast powers of requisitioning to provide houses for the people instead of providing them for speculative builders?

Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend can take it that as far as we at the Scottish Office are concerned, every encouragement is being given to Edinburgh to requisition for the purpose of private dwelling houses.

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how -many permanent houses has building construction actually been commenced in Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Dumbartonshire, respectively, since 1st August last.

Mr. Buchanan: The numbers of permanent houses begun since 1st August in the. Landward and Burghal areas of Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Dumbartonshire are 158, 148 and 79 respectively.

School Buildings

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 years, he is prepared to give partly-built schools equal priority for completion with the first large-scale housing schemes; to ensure that any prefabricated huts required to accommodate the additional school population shall be specially designed for educational purposes; and to replace these huts within a stated period of time by permanent buildings.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): Until the provision of houses more closely approximates to the demand I cannot see my way to give equal priority to the completion of school buildings, but I shall do my best to facilitate their completion as far as the supply of labour and materials permits. It is impossible to provide the accommodation required for the raising of the school leaving age on 1st April, 1947, without using prefabricated huts now available, as specially designed huts could not be planned and constructed in the time. It is intended to replace the prefabricated huts as soon as labour and materials are available for permanent building, but I am unable at present to say when this will be.

Mr. Rankin: So far as sites, structure, layout and furnishings of these temporary buildings are concerned, will they conform to the very best trends in modern educational requirements?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.

Local Authorities (Block Grants)

Mr. Alexander Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the amount of the extra supplementation of grant payable to the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw under the new formula; the amount which would have been payable under the formula used in calculating the block grant; the amount payable to the city of Edinburgh under the new formula; and the amount which would have been payable under the old formula.

Mr. Fraser: As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

The amount of the new money proposed to be paid under the Bill to Edinburgh and to Motherwell and Wishaw is:


—
1945–46.
1946–47.
1947–48.



£
£
£


Edinburgh
1146,465
118,111
175,757 


Motherwell and Wishaw.
15,427
16,970
18,512

If the whole of the new money were distributed on the basis of the weighted population used for the distribution of the present block grant, the figures would be:


—
1945–46.
1946–47.
1947–48.



£
£
£


Edinburgh
66,475
72,022
78,569 


Motherwell and Wishaw.
 22,928
25,221
27,514

The weighted population used for the distribution of part of the existing grant was calculated by reference to the circumstances of the year 1935–36; and, as it is heavily weighted for unemployment, it is now somewhat out of date in respect of industrial areas. The basis of distribution of the new money is generally in accordance with the views of the Associations of Local Authorities concerned.

Hebrides

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the pre-war offer by the Department of Agriculture to the Ross-shire County Council of a 75 per cent. grant towards construction of the proposed pier at Portnaguran, Isle of Lewis, is now available, or will be renewed at the earliest date, in view of the importance of this project to the restoration of the island's fishing industry.

Mr. Fraser: The prewar offer was for a grant of 75 per cent of the cost of the construction of a harbour at Portnaguran subject to a maximum of £10,500. As a similar harbour now would cost: a very much larger sum a renewal of the former offer would not meet. the case. The possibility of revising the plan with a view to reducing costs is being examined.

Sir W. Darling: Do I understand from the Under-Secretary that the offer of the previous Tory Government is far more generous than that of the present Government?

Mr. Fraser: I said that it will be understood that a 75 percent. grant of the former cost will not now meet the case.

Sir W. Darling: Because it was too much?

Mr. Fraser: No, not enough.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the hardship endured by crofters in the Outer Hebrides and by their wives because of the increasingly long distances over which they have to carry their peat fuel on their backs, because of the exhaustion of the nearer peat banks; and if the Department of Agriculture will take steps to have the peat roads extended and widened for the motor transport of peat.

Mr. Fraser: I appreciate that as nearer peat banks become exhausted it is more arduous for crofters to transport their peat supply. So far as estates owned by the State are concerned, assistance has been given towards the construction of peat roads in a number of cases, and any further applications for this purpose will have sympathetic consideration. My right hon. Friend has now power, however, to assist in extending and widening peat roads on private estates.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that no particular authority seems to have any funds at its disposal for this purpose, will the Under-Secretary undertake to consult the Ministries to see whether any powers can be acquired?

Mr. Fraser: I will undertake to inquire of the other Ministries, but some of these roads are on private estates, and I am not so sure we have power to intervene there.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not very simple for the Minister to requisition private estates?

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether special consultations on specifically Hebridean questions have taken place between him and the Minister of War Transport in recent weeks; and if they have developed a co-ordinated scheme of road construction work embracing roads serving Department of Agriculture estates,

as well as county highways, in view of the need of improved transport for all island developments.

Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has had no special consultations with the Minister of War Transport on specifically Hebridean questions in recent weeks, but the two Departments are in frequent touch on these matters. The planning and construction of public roads other than trunk roads, however, is a matter for the county councils.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the complete failure of the Tory county councils in Inverness-shire in the past to undertake their obligations, will some action be taken by the Department acting jointly with the other Departments?

Mr. Fraser: It may be that some action will be taken by the electors in this particular area today.

Education Authorities (Statistics)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the fact that many of the statistical demands of his department on the education authorities relating, particularly, to the schools, were modified during the war, he will see that no return is made to the pre-war practice, but will ensure that the statistical requirements of his department are kept at a minimum, so far as schools are concerned.

Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has always sought to avoid asking for any statistical returns not essential for purposes of administration. The important educational developments which will take place in the coming years make it more than ever necessary to have full and accurate information on matters relating to the schools. I fear, therefore, that it is not possible to give an undertaking that none of the statistical returns with which it has been possible to dispense under war conditions will be reintroduced. I will see, however, that the point made by my hon. Friend with which I am in complete sympathy, is borne in mind.

Fishing Industry, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fishing vessels were, during the last three months, diverted from the port of Aberdeen and with what tonnage of fish; why


these diversions occurred; and what steps he is taking to prevent loss of this kind the city of Aberdeen in future.

Mr. Fraser: During the past three months 29,300 tons of fish were landed at Aberdeen as compared with 21,950 tons in the corresponding period in 1938. No diversion of fishing vessels from Aberdeen to other landing ports has been instructed. I am informed that during the past three months not more than 12 vessels, with a total catch of 633 tons, representing about 2 per cent of the total landings, proceeded to other British ports to land their catches because the persons in charge of the vessels considered that they could be unloaded sooner at these other ports. The Regional Port Director for Scotland has recently inquired into the facilities for handling catches at Aberdeen, and his report, in which recommendations are made with regard to labour and other facilities, has been accepted by the industry.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what delays have occurred during the last month in discharging fish arriving in the port of Aberdeen; how many vessels and what quantity of fish were involved; how much fish was thereby wasted; and what were the causes of these delays and wastages, respectively.

Mr. Fraser: I am informed that on eight days in November, when very heavy catches were brought in, out of I70 vessels with an aggregate catch of 4,500 tons, a total of 28 vessels, with an aggregate catch of 8I6 tons, were unable owing to the high level of landings to discharge for the first sale after arrival. I understand that all these vessels were discharged in time for the following day's sale, and that no waste of fish was involved.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what average quantity of fish was, during the last month, landed daily at Aberdeen Harbour; and whether he is satisfied that adequate gear and other facilities are avail able there to discharge promptly all the fish as it arrives in harbour.

Mr. Fraser: The average quantity of fish landed at Aberdeen daily during November was 350 tons, as compared with 240 tons in November, 1938. As I have

already stated, recommendations made by the Regional Port Director for Scotland with regard to the facilities available have recently been accepted by the industry.

Mr. Hughes: Would the Under-Secretary answer the part of the Question dealing with gear, and state whether he is satisfied that adequate gear and other facilities are available to discharge fish as it arrives in harbour?

Mr. Fraser: I think that point is covered in the report to which I have just referred.

Sutherland (County Clerk)

I7. Mr. Alexander Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the discontent in the North-East of Scotland over the unusual method of appointment to the office of county clerk adopted by the Sutherland County Council; and will he take steps to ensure that future appointments are made on merits after open competition.

Mr. Fraser: The appointment of a county clerk is under statute a matter for the county council, and my right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction in regard to it. I understand, however, that the appointment referred to was made by the county council in the normal way at a meeting held after the vacancy had been publicly advertised and applications invited for the post.

Mr. Anderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the advertisement to which he referred there was no mention whatever of any previous qualification for so important and specialised an appointment, and that the person appointed was entirely devoid of any previous experience? Can he suggest no remedy to this sort of thing?

Mr. Fraser: I am afraid that is a matter for the local authority and, of course, the matter is in the hands of the local electors.

Youth Advisory Committee (Report)

Mr. Goodrich: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the national importance of the matters dealt with and the valuable suggestions contained in the Report of the Scottish Youth Advisory Committee on the News of Youth in these Times, published by his predecessor on 11th May, 1945, at Is. 6d., he will consider, in consultation with the Minister of Education, jointly publishing


copies of such Report either free or at a lower price, and their circulation free of charge to all statutory and voluntary bodies interested.

Mr. Fraser: Copies of this report have already been issued free of charge to all education authorities and national youth organisations in Scotland. The question whether a similar free issue should be made in England and Wales, is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. The report has already been put on sale by the Stationery Office in England and Wales as well as in Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Under-Secretary take steps to make this valuable publication into a Parliamentary Paper?

Mr. Fraser: I will have that suggestion looked into.

Water Supplies

Major Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of his circular letter dated 27th October, 1945, to local authorities intimating postponement until 31st March, 1946, of the date for receiving applications for grants under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, he will consider and approve or disapprove each scheme as soon as possible after it is submitted and will give an undertaking that all schemes so approved will receive a grant under the Act.

Mr. Buchanan: My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider water schemes as they come in from the local authorities, but until he can see the complete picture as reflected in the proposals of local authorities as a whole he is, I am afraid, not in a position to determine the rate of grant for each approved scheme.

Major Macpherson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this will seriously postpone putting into effect a number of schemes unless local authorities have some idea of the extent to which the Treasury will contribute?

Mr. Buchanan: We take the view that we cannot make a grant in respect of one scheme and give different treatment in the case of another one which may come along a month later. We take the view that we should treat the matter as a

whole, and local authorities will not be unduly hampered because they will all be equitably treated.

School Meals

Mr. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by his Department with school feeding arrangements in North-east Scotland.

Mr. Fraser: In the area comprising Aberdeen, Dundee, Aberdeen County, Angus, Banff, Kincardine, Moray and Nairn, the percentage of children receiving dinners was 6.7 in May, 1942, 12.9 in June, 1943, and 18.8 in June, 1945. So far, schemes have been approved for the construction of facilities which will enable dinners to be provided for 55 per cent. of the children on the roll in this area.

Mr. Cook: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us when it will be possible greatly to increase the numbers at present receiving school dinners?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot say when, but education authorities in Scotland have been urged to make provision for school meals up to 75 per cent. of their school population as soon as possible.

Radiography Units

Mr. Cook: asked the Secretary for Scotland how many radiography units there are in Scotland; to what extent they are used; and if more of these units are to be installed in the near future.

Mr. Buchanan: Two units, belonging to Glasgow Corporation and Lanark County Council respectively, are now in operation in Scotland. A third unit will, it is hoped, begin to operate shortly in Edinburgh. 40,610 persons have so far been examined by the Glasgow and Lanark County units. When more apparatus can be manufactured and when more medical and other personnel are available the allocation of units to other local authorities will be considered.

Mr. Cook: Is my hon. Friend taking steps to see that this is speeded up at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Buchanan: We are now making every effort to see if we can increase this apparatus for other well deserving authorities.

Mr. McAllister: In view of the manifest prejudice on the part of the School of Radiology at Edinburgh University against medical graduates of Glasgow University, will the Under-Secretary seek to establish a school of radiology and radiography in Glasgow?

Mr. Buchanan: I am sorry, but that question does not arise, and it is much too difficult for me to answer on the spur of the moment.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my hon. Friend assure us that when he gets the staff, particularly the radiographers, he will give them salaries and conditions such as obtain in England so that Scotland will not lose these girls to English authorities?

Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend can take it that if it is a question of taking up the matter of salaries and emoluments in Scotland, I will not be lacking.

National Fire Service

Mr. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of N.F.S. personnel still engaged in duties in Scotland.

Mr. Fraser: At 30th November, 1945, there were 3,153 men and 580 women employed whole-time in the National Fire Service in Scotland.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the grievance is not that they arc engaged in duties, but the vast majority of the N.F.S. are grousing because they have nothing on earth to do, and they cannot get out?

Schools (Physical Training Kits)

Mr. Gilzean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will circularise education committees in Scotland, reminding them of the powers they possess under Subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1945, whereby they are permitted to make provision for physical training kits, including football outfits; and urge them to take advantage of this provision in the Act.

Mr. Fraser: Education authorities have already been reminded of this power to provide articles of clothing suitable for physical exercise. The present supply position would make it difficult to meet any extensive demand from education authorities, but I hope that when it im-

proves they will take the fullest advantage of this new power.

Mr. Gilzean: Will the Joint Undersecretary of State take into account that a great deal of what is described as juvenile delinquency is due to the fact that recreational facilities do not exist and that, consequently, to provide recreational facilities would reduce this so-called juvenile delinquency?

Mr. Fraser: I accept entirely the observations of my hon. Friend.

Flax Industry

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to take any steps to prevent the loss to Scotland of the technique of flax growing and processing acquired during the war.

Mr. Fraser: I have been in close consultation on this matter with the Ministers concerned and with the Scottish Council on Industry. The responsibility for flax production rests with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who informs me that the production of flax is being concentrated in areas where it can be most economically produced. Unfortunately, costs of flax produced in Scotland have been higher than the average for Great Britain, and despite intensive efforts no tenant has been found willing to take over on lease any of the three Scottish factories.

Mr. Snadden: Is it not regrettable that three flax-fibre producing factories in Scotland are to be closed down? Is not the Minister aware that there is no mystery about growing flax and that the vagaries of the weather are of no greater account in Scotland in regard to flax growing than they are in any other country?

Mr. Fraser: I am afraid, whether it is because of the vagaries of the weather or not, flax production in Scotland has not been so successful as flax production in England.

Sir Ronald Ross: Or in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Sergeant Testers (Pay)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War why sergeant testers serving at 25 W.O.S.B., R.T.C., do not receive specialist pay.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Lawson): Their responsibilities are recognised instead by the grant of suitable paid rank, the minimum rank being sergeant.

Mr. Driberg: Does that quite meet the point? Does my right hon Friend recall that on a previous occasion he emphasised that these men were specialists, doing a special kind of skilled work?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir, and for that reason they were given the rank of sergeant, and the pay.

Oversea Tours (Home Leave)

Mr. Basil Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War what period of home leave is now granted to men drafted from one overseas Command to another.

Mr. Lawson: None, Sir, as a general rule. Embarkation leave is granted before departure from the United Kingdom for an overseas tour, during which the men are liable to be moved from one Command to another to meet changing requirements. Arrangements have been made, where time and movement facilities permit, to send men via the United Kingdom and to give them leave when they are moved, but this cannot always be done.

Mr. Nield: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is not now possible, the war being over, to allow this home leave in the vast majority of cases, at any rate from Western Europe, when a man is posted, say, to the Far East?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member knows that men going from the B.A.O.R. to the Far East are at present given leave, and when they are going from the C.M.F. to the Middle East it sometimes happens that their leave is advanced. They are given leave, but in view of the urgent circumstances, this cannot always be guaranteed.

Mediterranean (Officers' Guests)

Mr. Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in the C.M.F. area there are any restaurants, hotels, clubs or cafes to which officers may take A.T.S., other ranks, as their guests.

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. Officers may take A.T.S. other ranks as guests to any restaurants, hotels, etc. which are not reserved for officers only, or for other ranks only.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in certain parts of Italy the A.T.S. have to borrow a civilian suit or attire to be accompanied by an officer, and that an officer in some cases has to borrow a private's greatcoat to take an A.T.S. into a club? Will my right hon. Friend have another look at these rules?

Mr. Lawson: I have stated what the rule is. If that rule is not being kept and I get evidence, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Walkden: Have another look at it.

Officer's Accounts, India (Transfer)

Mr. Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of British officers overpaid while serving in India or Burma owing to the failure of the Indian authorities to notify, and the British authorities to ascertain, their arrival; the number from whom repayment is being demanded after their return to Great Britain; and the number who are required to make repayment after their release, respectively.

Mr. Lawson: The details asked for could not be obtained without considerable investigation and interference with current work but, as I informed the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on 22nd November, I am investigating the reasons for the delay in the transfer of officers' accounts from India, with a view to the prevention of such over-issues.

Hailing Bridge

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will postpone the demolition of the Hailing bridge over the Medway, built at the cost of the taxpayer and extensively used by the 9,000 population of the district, until the local authorities can replace it with another structure.

Mr. Lawson: I have now authorised a further postponement of demolition until 1st January, 1946, but unless the local authority concerned is prepared to take over the maintenance from that date it will be necessary to dismantle it.

Dependants' Allowance

Mr. Spearman: asked the Secretary of State for War (I) what provision he proposes to make for Mrs. Ellerby,


wife or widow of D. G. Ellerby, 1799225, who disappeared in February, since when Mrs. Ellerby has received no allowance;
(2) if he will make financial provision for the wives of soldiers who have deserted or been sent to prison.

Mr. Lawson: I fully sympathise with the families in these cases, but I have no power to undertake responsibility for their maintenance. The family allowance continues for seven days in the case of absence without leave, and is issuable again when the soldier returns to the Colours. The allowance continues throughout periods of imprisonment or detention, unless the soldier is committed to penal servitude and sent to a civil prison, in which case he is transferred to the Reserve at the end of two months and the allowance automatically ceases for that reason.
There is nothing I can do in the case of Private Ellerby. The soldier absented himself without leave in this country in February last, and, following a court of inquiry, was declared a deserter.

Mr. Spearman: Is the Minister aware that Private Ellerby was killed in an air raid in London a year ago? Could the Minister not devise some different method of punishment by which hardship is not borne by the second generation?

Mr. Lawson: I am sorry if the man's wife may be suffering under an error in this matter, but I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that this man absented himself without leave on three occasions within the six months previous to this occasion.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is not the Minister aware that there are genuine cases where people have disappeared? Why do the War Office always take the worst possible view of it?

Mr. Lawson: I was asked a question about a particular case.

Commissions (Nomination of Candidates)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of an A.C.I. which forbids visits by colonels of regiments to O.C.T.U.s with a view to getting personal touch with candidates for commissions in their regiments; what is the reason for this Order; and whether he will cause it to be cancelled as soon as possible.

Mr. Lawson: I am aware of the instruction referred to. The selection and posting to regiments of officer cadets is the responsibility of the War Office in the light of Army requirements as a whole, and cannot depend entirely on personal preferences for particular regiments, or on personal recommendations.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the existence of War Office Letter 26 General /5183, issued to all colonels of regiments, in which the responsibilities of colonels of regiments are laid down, and that the first of those responsibilities is
nominating suitable candidates for commissions in the regiment''?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say how those instructions are to be carried out, in view of the recent arrangements to which he has made reference?

Mr. Lawson: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for directing my attention to this rule. I must say that it is no desire of mine that these candidates should be segregated from visitors, but I must make it clear that the War Office have a responsibility in this matter which it cannot delegate to anyone, officers or anybody else.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Secretary of State for War say whether this letter, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred, will be cancelled or withdrawn, or what will be done about it?

Sir R. Ross: Has not the War Office always had this responsibility?

A.T.S. Officers

Major Digby: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many A.T.S. officers engaged in signals duties in B.A.O.R. are redundant; that nevertheless their release has been postponed; and whether he will issue instructions for an immediate review of the relevant war establishments.

Mr. Lawson: The release of these officers is governed by the rules recently announced concerning all A.T.S. officers. But I am calling for a report on the matter.

Compulsory Church Parades

Mr. Daines: asked the Secretary of State for War under which provision of King's Regulations has a commanding


officer the power to compel men detailed for church parade to attend divine service.

Mr. Lawson: Paragraph 1605.

Mr. Thurtle: Will my right hon. Friend consider revising this order, and is he aware that the great party which he represents has always been against this enforced religious observance?

Mr. Lawson: That would be a matter for consideration later on, but as the law is I cannot interfere.

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to take it from this Question and answer that, contrary to the situation in the earthly sphere, the supply of celestial transport is greater than the demand?

Captain Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in reconsidering this matter, that the mingling of patriotism, discipline and church is resented by many people with extremely sincere religious convictions?

Sports Equipment

Mr. Daines: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, although manufacturers of sports goods in this country are supplying N.A.A.F.I. with a good deal of equipment, men in the Services continue to complain that they are unable to obtain anything at all in the way of sports equipment from N.A.A.F.I.; and whether he will take appropriate action designed to prevent the hoarding of supplies in warehouses by this organisation.

Mr. Lawson: The only function of N.A.A.F.I. is to act as the central buying agency and to carry out distribution according to the instructions of the Army Sport Control Board. Owing to world wide shortage purchases have to be made by units, not individual men, to ensure an even distribution. I am satisfied that this system is the fairest method of supply.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does my right hon. Friend now refute the idea that he is the distributor of profits, in the shape of pleasure and joy, which are made by N.A.A.F.I. out of buns and beer?

Mr. Lawson: I suggested that this is the best possible method of supply at present.

Mr. Walkden: Why does not the Minister see to fairer distribution?

Sandown Park (Rent)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War what rent is being paid for Sandown Park; and for what purpose it is being used.

Mr. Lawson: £10,000 a year, fixed by the General Claims Tribunal. It is used to accommodate a training unit.

Captain Marsden: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect that Sandown Park will be free for its usual peacetime purposes?

Mr. Lawson: I cannot say, but the amount is fixed by the General Claims Tribunal, which is an independent body appointed for the purpose. I cannot say how soon it will be released.

West African Units

Major Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that British other ranks serving with West African units in India received no special trainng before joining the R.W.A.F.F.; that they receive no specialist-pay for their duties; that most West African troops speak English and all orders are given in English; that West African troops were originally conducted to India by British troops with no previous experience with Africans; and whether he will revoke his decision to suspend repatriation and leave for British troops serving with West African formations and replace them by other British troops in India of higher age groups who are unemployed.

Mr. Lawson: As will be seen from my reply on 13th November to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland), it has been found in practice that care must be exercised in the selection of suitable officers and non-commissioned officers for these units. This is particularly necessary in present circumstances, when the units themselves are awaiting repatriation, and I can only say that all practical steps are already being taken to reduce to a minimum the period of deferment of the British personnel.

Major Symonds: As the duty for which these men are being retained is mainly draft-conducting, is my right hon. Friend aware that this duty, involving as it does


a sea voyage, would be a most healthy occupation for those surplus Army personnel now taking root in G.H.Q., New Delhi?

Mr. Lawson: I understand that the reason these officers and; N.C.O's are being deferred is that they were the leaders of these men in war, and consequently they are trusted by them. The deferment is largely due to the lack of shipping for the repatriation of these men.

Mr. Janner: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether European men compulsorily transferred from the R.W.A.F.F. to the Indian Army are outside the provisions of Regulations for release from the Army, and, if so, will he take steps to have these men treated on the same basis as British troops in other Commands?

Mr. Lawson: I should have to see that Question on the Order Paper.

Tuberculosis Treatment

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Secretary of State for War how many sanatoria under military control have been set up for the treatment of tuberculosis amongst the Forces.

Mr. Lawson: None, Sir. This treatment is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, but, as I stated on 16th October, in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), the possibility of special arrangements for Service personnel is now under examination. Meanwhile, to avoid delay in treatment, a number of Service patients are being retained under military care.

Dental Corps (Regular Officers)

Captain Baird: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory conditions of service and the lack of opportunities for promotion for Regular officers of the A.D.C.; and if he is satisfied that under present terms of service the required number of dental officers will become available to ensure an adequate dental service for the post-war Army.

Mr. Lawson: I am aware that the number of candidates coming forward for regular commissions in the Army Dental Corps at present is inadequate, and I am considering certain measures designed

to remedy this. But it must be borne in mind that there is at present an overall shortage of dentists in this country.

Ranker Commissions

Lieutenant W. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of commissions granted from the ranks, together with the number of direct commissions during the war.

Mr. Lawson: From 1st September, 1939, to 31st October, 1945, 208,017 commissions were granted, including 151,310 from the ranks, of which 26,198 were direct commissions, the remainder being through 0.C.T.Us. These figures do not include A.T.S.

Education

Lieutenant Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that their duties are preventing the attendance of members of military police units in the B.A.O.R. at study centres, provided under the Army education scheme; and whether he will inquire, in particular, into the position at Antwerp, where men in the CM.P., who wish to improve their peacetime prospects, find themselves unable to use the facilities available.

Mr. Lawson: The decision whether a unit can implement the Army Education Scheme, having regard to its military commitments, rests with the local commander, but I am looking into this particular case.

Demobilisation

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men already granted a Group B release who are at present at Boyce Barracks, Crookham, Hants; how many of these men have been there for a period exceeding 14 days; and the reason for their remaining at these barracks.

Mr. Lawson: On 28th November, there were 127, of whom I08 had been there 14 days or more, but all these should by now have been released. The delay was due to a misunderstanding on the part of the unit and the officer responsible for authorising Class B release, and steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence. The normal period of retention is not more than three or four days.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War if officers in Groups 22 and


23, who on compassionate grounds do not have their release delayed beyond the appropriate time for their group, can be given the release leave and pay which would be their right if discharged under Class. A.

Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 20th November to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo).

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men have certainly done over five years and that. they are not in receipt of release leave and pay?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.

Tripoli (Anti-Jewish Outbreaks)

Mr. George Porter: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received a report from the military commander at Tripoli on the anti-Jewish outbreaks in Tripoli which began on 4th November; how it was that in an area under British military occupation these riots continued unabated for over two days, resulting in the killing of 100 Jews, including women and children; and why no curfew was imposed to check the rioting until the third day.

Mr. Lawson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement I made on this matter on 27th November in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton).

M.E.F. (Passages for Wives)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to enable the wives of men serving in the M.E.F. to join their husbands.

Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9th October in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). Full details have been issued to all concerned.

Major Digby: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that other ranks serving with the Regular Army in the Middle East are reluctant to allow their wives to join them under the new scheme, as they consider the proposed accommodation inadequate and do not think it right that their wives should be housed in tents; and whether he will

take steps either to provide better accommodation or, alternatively, to increase leave to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lawson: I should like to make it clear that the initiative in these cases rests with the soldier, but that his application for a passage for his family cannot be considered unless the command is satisfied that proper accommodation is available. This must necessarily be accommodation which already exists. If the accommodation is not satisfactory the families cannot be allowed to proceed. Leave from overseas is already maintained at the highest practical level and is constantly under review.

Mr. Lipson: Would it be possible to make that information more widely known, as many of them do not know?

Mr. Lawson: I will consider that point, because I do desire that all possible details should be known about this matter.

Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many applications have, in fact been granted under this scheme up to date?

Mr. Lawson: No, I am sorry but I cannot.

Personal Case

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: asked the Secretary of State for War why 69520 T/Major A. F. Dunn, R.A.M.C, who was in release Group 7, was not released till 30thOctober; and if further delays such as this in the release of doctors are likely.

Mr. Lawson: Major Dunn was employed as the senior medical officer on a troop-ship which for some time has been plying between East Africa, India and South Africa and there seems little doubt that it was not possible to contact and relieve this officer at the time when other officers in his group, serving with land formations, were assembled by India and repatriated to the United Kingdom. I cannot say that the special circumstances in this officer's case will not occur again, but the number of doctors, apart from certain specialists, whose release will be delayed is likely to be very small.

Requisitioned Property (Malaya)

Major Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Victoria Institute at Kuala Lumpur has been requisitioned


by the military authorities; and whether he is aware that this is the only university in the Malayan Peninsula.

Mr. Lawson: I am inquiring as to the first part of the Question and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend. As to the second part, I am informed that it is not a university, but one of a number of secondary English schools.

Major Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that A.L.F.S.E.A. and S.E.A.C. have commandeered a large number of buildings for clubs, and, at Singapore and in the Malayan Peninsula, for officers, causing annoyance to local residents, particularly as the buildings requisitioned are often colleges and institutes?

Mr. Lawson: I have said that I will write to the hon. and gallant Member, and I will take note of the point he has mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEREDITARY TITLES

Mr. Stamford: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that he will make no further recommendations for hereditary titles conferred either for political reasons or in recognition of public services.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has nothing to add to the reply which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston division of Glasgow (Mr. Rankin) on 18th October last.

Mr. Stamford: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these hereditary titles are quite indefensible in present circumstances, and will he bear in mind that they have always been strongly resisted by the Labour Party?

Mr. Morrison: I am not quite sure about "always," but in any case the essential constitutional point is that there is another place which is part of the Legislature, and it really is essential that the Government, as well as other people, should be represented in it.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Has the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently considered the affirmation in a well-known hymn:

"There is room for fresh creations In that upper home of bliss"?

Mr. Charles Williams: Will not that other place be found very useful when the first Government reshuffle comes?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN WAR MATERIALS

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many underground factories and dumps of war material have been discovered in Germany; and whether an active search is being made for others.

Mr. Mathers (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend has no information as to the number of factories and war dumps discovered in Germany. In reply to the second part of the Question, active steps continue to be taken by the Commander-in-Chief of the Rhine Army to uncover such factories and dumps as have not already been discovered in the British zone. If the hon. Member would like to know what tonnage of armaments has already been destroyed, my hon. Friend will endeavour to provide the figures. It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to destroy or remove the whole of the German armament industry and this is being carried out.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for War how many German captured vehicles, scheduled as unserviceable by his Department, are now held in British dumps in and around Athens; how long they have been there; and whether, in view of the shortage of transport in Greece and the inadequacy of military repair facilities, he will arrange to release these vehicles for sale at controlled prices on the local civilian market.

Mr. Lawson: 1,074, sent mainly from Crete during the last six months. As I have informed my hon. and gallant Friend by letter, any surplus captured vehicles are handed over for civilian use at once or after repair. Action is being taken to hand over unserviceable vehicles as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS (PETROL PRICE)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the position in which certain hospitals, charitable and other organisations are placed, who have previously


been exempt from motor licence taxation and will now be called upon to pay an additional 4d. per gallon for petrol; and what steps he proposes to take to omit these hospitals.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir; there will be no additional 4d. a gallon on petrol.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Temporary Clerks

Mr. Chamberlain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many vacancies in the basic executive and clerical grades of the Civil Service have been filled since the end of the war by persons aged 30 to 55 years; what proportion of the total postwar permanent Civil Service intake this represents; and whether he will give an assurance that a temporary clerk aged 38 years with five years' service who has matriculated will have an opportunity either of being nominated for the permanent service or of entering the competitive examination therefor.

Mr. Dalton: The answer is detailed, and I will, with permission, circulate it.

Following is the information:

No such vacancies have yet been filled, but arrangements are in progress for the filling of 350 vacancies in the basic executive grade of the Civil Service, and 2,000 vacancies in the basic clerical grade, by the establishment of temporary civil servants between the ages of 30 and 55. A further 400 clerical vacancies will be filled in this way towards the end 0I the reconstruction period. These figures represent 15 per cent. of the accrued vacancies in the grades in question. Any temporary clerk aged 38 who has had two years or more of continuous service is eligible for consideration for establishment in this way.

Scientific Staff

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the new salary scales for the Scientific Civil Service will be so applied that existing staff shall not be at a disadvantage in comparison with new entrants.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Existing scientific staff will, on being brought into the new organisation, be given sufficient credit for

previous service to put them broadly on equal terms with new entrants of the same age and quality. Details are being worked out.

Mr. Pickthorn: While expressing satisfaction with the answer, is it ungracious to inquire whether it would not have been possible to make the earlier announcement clear enough for scientists to know that this is to be the broad effect aimed at?

Mr. Hall: I think the earlier announcement did make it clear. If the hon. Gentleman still has doubts, I should be happy to meet him and go through the paper with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED PROPERTY

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a day has yet been appointed for the purposes of Section 45 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, not yet.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a date will have to be appointed before the end of February, and does he intend to leave it to the last moment?

Mr. Dalton: I 'do not think there is any purpose in rushing it. The most important thing is to derequisition, and I do not want to start refixing the rents of premises which are soon to be derequisitioned. I therefore think we had better let derequisitioning run on for a little before bringing this question in.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

War Damage Payments

Mr. Royle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make a statement on, or give any date by which value payments will be made for, business and property destroyed by enemy action; and is it his intention to adhere to 1939 values.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) on 22nd November, and, as regards the last part of the Question, to Section II of the War Damage Act, 1943.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to make payment in settlement of claims for loss of chattels caused by enemy action.

Mr. Dalton: This date cannot yet be fixed. It will depend not only on financial considerations but on the availability of supplies, particularly of furniture and clothing.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that considerable hardship is being caused by the delay?

Mr. Dalton: I think more hardship might be caused if we took precipitate action in the matter while supplies were not ready to meet the claims coming forward.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the £200 which is owed by the War Damage Commission to Sapper Frank Edwards, discharged from the Army with a 30 percent. disability pension, has not been paid, with the result that Sapper Edwards is now subsisting on charity.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On the information given it is not possible to identify the case to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. I have, however, written to him asking for further details and if he will supply them, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the man's name and address were given in my letter, and is he also aware that correspondence between the man and the War Damage Commission has been proceeding for some months?

Mr. Hall: That may be, but the letter we have—I have seen the letter—does not give the address of the property in question, and that being so, we could not do anything.

Mr. Hogg: Does not an honest debtor seek out his creditor?

Schedule A (Repairs Allowance)

Mr. Channon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that owing to the considerable increase in the cost of building repairs, the repairs allowance for property under Schedule A is now generally inadequate for the purpose; and whether he will review this matter at an early stage and arrange for the adjustment

of the allowance so as to conform with present costs.

Mr. Dalton: I regret that I cannot see my way to increase this allowance at present.

Bearer Securities (Prohibition)

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will repeal or modify Regulation 3B of the Defence (Finance) Regulations which prohibits the issue of bearer securities.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Purchase Tax (Furs)

Mrs. Ridealgh: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that imported rabbit skins for the making of utility furs are not liable to purchase tax, he will give the same exemption to British rabbit skins so that a greatly extended home and export in dustry can be stimulated.

Mr. Dalton: There is no distinction for Purchase Tax purposes between imported and British rabbit skins. If made up into utility fur garments, both pay only 16⅔ percent. If exported, both are exempt from Purchase Tax.

Mrs. Ridealgh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British rabbit skins known as "Rex" fur arc of a much better grade than the ordinary skins and therefore more expensive, are not used in utility furs, and are subject to 100 per cent. Purchase Tax, and that this is discouraging production of the furs and is discouraging ex-Servicemen from taking up this kind of enterprise? Will he go into the possibilities of this trade?

Mr. Dalton: With great pleasure, but having regard to the over-all shortage of clothing, I do not believe that there will be much difficulty in disposing of these very valuable fur garments.

Miss Bacon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that fur fabrics and Jacquard materials, bought by the yard, carry 100 per cent. Purchase Tax, whereas garments made of these materials carry only 16⅔ percent. Purchase Tax; and what steps he proposes to take to end this discrimination.

Mr. Dalton: I will bear this in mind when considering the possibility of further Purchase Tax reductions next year.

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite- Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) whether he will take steps to discriminate between imperial and foreign sterling balances acquired during the war and those acquired since the war in favour of holders of the latter, so as to secure them a prior claim on our limited supplies of goods available for export; and
(2) whether he is aware that payment for the large orders of goods placed in this country by Egyptian firms, will be paid for out of sterling balances accumulated by Egypt during the war; and, in view of the necessity for securing foreign exchange through our exports, he will take steps to prevent such use of wartime blocked balances.

Mr. Dalton: Any action on these lines would be a matter for negotiations with the Governments concerned.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amounts the sterling balances held by countries of the British Empire, other countries within the sterling area and countries outside the sterling area, have increased since the cessation of hostilities with Japan; and how much of these balances have been used to pay for exports from this country.

Mr. Dalton: The figures are only available at quarterly intervals. The total net increase between 30th June and 30th September, 1945, was about £100 millions. It is not possible to say how much was paid out during the quarter for exports from the United Kingdom.

Dollar Expenditure (Periodicals)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the practice whereby British magazines obtain most of their light fiction by buying second rights from American magazines, at a heavy expenditure of dollars; and whether he proposes to restrain or discourage this practice.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. No large expenditure of dollars is involved and I am reluctant to interfere in a matter on which tastes differ.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if it is intended to increase either the numbers, or the salaries, of Parliamentary Counsel; and to what extent.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. Improved scales of salary will be announced shortly.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that the small number of Parliamentary Counsel constitutes a bottleneck in Parliamentary legislation, would it not be better to increase the number rather than the salaries?

Mr. Hall: We contemplate both. I said "Yes, Sir," to the Question, which covers both points.

Major Lloyd: Would not the most satisfactory solution be to decrease the legislation?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Letters to Ministers

Mr. O'Brien: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the average number of letters received by Ministers from Members of the House weekly; and whether adequate staffs are at the disposal of the Ministers to deal promptly and satisfactorily with Members' correspondence.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that no figures are available, but the number is very substantial. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of present staffing difficulties, but I am sure that in all Departments every effort is made to reply promptly.

Mr. O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the object of the Question is a desire, which is shared by all hon. Members, to assist the Departments concerned, and that the precise information asked for in the Question would do a great deal to help the Government and hon. Members?

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister ask some of his colleagues whether they can give us something better than the very scrappy acknowledgment they send?

Mr. Hall: I do not know what I can do about it. I have no doubt that other Ministers read Hansard, or that someone in their Departments reads it, and I have not the slightest doubt that the point made by my hon. Friend will come to their attention.

Mr. Maxton: Does my hon. Friend realise that one can wait two months for an answer if one gets a nicely written acknowledgment?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I have had to send a letter back because of its bureaucratic character and its complete lack of humanity?

Speeches (Reprints)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will authorise a substantial increase in the maximum number of reprints of speeches hon. Members may order from the official printer.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, not at present. On the production side, I hope to be able to offer an increase early next year. The size of the increase is a matter for the consideration of the House.

Mr. Bowles: Does the Minister realise that this is quite an unwarrantable interference with Parliamentary Privilege, that hon. Members should be entitled to distribute: copies of any Parliamentary speech, and that the Executive, by restricting the paper supply available, is interfering with that proper distribution, and preventing hon. Members from carrying out their duty properly?

Mr. Hall: I cannot add to what I have said. It is hoped that on the production side an increase can be offered in the early part of next year, but at the moment it is felt that, under existing difficulties and with the shortage of paper and labour, the present number should be enough.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, in his consideration of the matter, that this policy is not leading to a saving of paper or newsprint, and that in point of fact those hon. Members who want speeches to be reprinted have to go elsewhere to get a sufficient quantity?

Mr. Hall: Before the war the number of applications of this kind was fairly small and modest, but during the war

there were occasions when hon. Members wanted up to 30,000 copies of a single speech. It is felt that the rule should for the moment be what it is.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many times a Member wanted 30,000 copies of his speech?

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S BADGE

Lieutenant William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there appears to be a good deal of unauthorised use of the badge For Loyal Service; and whether he will consider the public sale of this token.

Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe).

GAS INDUSTRY INQUIRY

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): With the permission of the House, I would like to inform them that I have now received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Gas Industry which was constituted by my predecessor in June, 1944. The Report is an interesting and valuable document, and I have arranged with the Stationery Office for copies to be available in the Vote Office early this evening so that hon. Members may be able to make themselves acquainted with its substance and recommendations, which relate to the reorganisation of the industry. I am very grateful to Mr. Geoffrey Hayworth, the Chairman, and the Members of the Committee, for having made a searching and exhaustive inquiry into a difficult and technical subject of national importance.

INDIA

Government Policy: Parliamentary Delegation

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make the following statement with regard to India.
The statement made by the Viceroy, after his return to India, contemplates the steps which His Majesty's Government


propose should be taken to promote the early realisation of full self-government in India. The full significance of these proposals does not seem to have been properly appreciated in India. Since it is the firm conviction of His Majesty's Government that it is by and in consultation with the directly elected representatives of the Indian people, that decisions as to the future governance of British India should be taken, it was a necessary preliminary that elections should be held to the Provincial Legislatures and the Central Assembly in India. It was announced that after the elections in India, preparatory discussions would be held with the elected representatives of British India, and with the Indian States, in order to secure the widest measure of agreement as to the method of framing a constitution. Unjustified suggestions have gained wide currency in India that these discussions would be a fruitful source of delay. I desire to make it plain that His Majesty's Government regard the setting up of a constitution-making body, by which Indians will decide their own future and also other proposals embodied in the announcement, as a matter of the greatest urgency.
This misunderstanding has led His Majesty's Government to consider whether opportunities of personal contact between this country and India, which have been greatly interrupted during recent years, cannot now be increased. They regard it is a matter of importance that members of our own Parliament should have an opportunity to meet leading political Indian personalities, to learn their own views at first hand. They would also be able to convey in person the general wish and desire of the people of this country that India should speedily attain her full and rightful position as an independent partner State in the British Commonwealth, and the desire of Parliament to do everything within our power to promote the speedy attainment of that objective. His Majesty's Government are, therefore, arranging for a Parliamentary delegation to go to India under the auspices of the Empire Parliamentary Association. The intention is that this party should leave this country as soon as possible. In view of the difficulties of transport, it will be limited in size. The delegation will be selected by the Association in consultation with Parliamentary

representatives of the chief political parties in this country.
During the transition towards complete self-government India will be passing through difficult times. No greater disservice could be done to a future Indian Government and to the cause of democracy than to permit the foundations of the State to be weakened and the loyalty of its servants to those who are in authority to be undermined before that new Government comes into being. Therefore the Government of India cannot divest itself of the responsibility which rests upon it and upon all Provincial Government of preserving law and order and of resisting any attempt to resolve the constitutional issue by force. The realisation of full self-government can only come by the orderly and peaceful transfer of control of the machinery of State to purely Indian authority. His Majesty's Government could not permit any attempt to be made to break down the loyalty of the administrative services or of the Indian armed forces, and they will give full support to the Government of India in securing that their servants are protected in the performance of their duty and that the future constitution of India shall not be called into being by force or threat of force. In addition, the great need of India, whatever Governments are in power, is to raise the standard of life, of education, and of health of the masses of the people. Boldly conceived plans to meet this are already in being and His Majesty's Government are giving every encouragement to proceed with them so that improving social conditions may go forward simultaneously with the institution of self-government.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement, the terms of which I have no doubt have been very carefully considered, and rightly so, by His Majesty's Government. I am sure he will understand me if I say that my right hon. Friends and I would like a little time to look at them before making any comment upon them, as I daresay will other hon. Members also. However, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question or two on a point in the statement which is not quite clear to me, and that is, what are to be the functions of this Parliamentary delegation? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware there have been many such delegations at differ-


ent times to Dominions and to Colonies of the British Empire, but all those delegations, I think, have been entirely unofficial. Is this delegation to be on the same lines? I presume that it is. Is it to differ in any way from these other delegations that have gone out from here before? If so, how is it to differ, and is it to make a report? If so, to whom is it to make a report? I think those things ought to be cleared up so that there may be no danger of misunderstanding in India about the functions of any delegation of this kind. Finally, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I wholly endorse what he said at the conclusion of his statement, that no force, or threat of force, can ever be a possible basis for the development of self-government in India, and we would also endorse his statement about the standard of living and the need for improvement in that respect.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the first part of what he said, this is an Empire Parliamentary Association delegation. Nevertheless, I think it would foe in a rather special category. As I conceive it, one of its purposes would be first of all to convey the good will of the British Parliament, and also to make contacts, to get information, and to assess the situation. I would hope that upon its return, Mr. Speaker, you might give it an opportunity of conferring with His Majesty's Government in order to express its views and impressions. At that point we could consider what further action should be taken. In that sense, it is rather exceptional, but we should certainly wish to have the advantage of the views and opinions and impressions of the delegates on their return.

Mr. Maxton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is not this conferring on the Empire Parliamentary Association a status somewhat different from what it has held in the past? After all, it is only a voluntary association.

Mr. Morrison: That is perfectly true, but, on the other hand, there is an active branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association in India. The Association has a good many contacts, and we thought that it was a convenient arrangement. That was the reason why we thought the Empire Parliamentary Association would provide suitable auspices.

Mr. Eden: I wonder if I might ask the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton). This is, I think, a complete departure from any previous practice. I think, if the Government will look at the matter, they will find that all other visits have been made in response to invitations from the Dominions concerned, and I should have thought, if the Government's object is something more than a good-will mission, as it appears to be, they might be wiser to send out a mission representative—if it were agreed—of all parties in this House under the auspices of the Government rather than to stretch this Empire Parliamentary Association into a role it has never had before.

Mr. Morrison: That will, of course, not affect the position of the delegation, as far is I can see, because it was proposed, in any case, that the delegation should be chosen after consultation with the principal Parliamentary political parties, and therefore it comes, in that sense, very much to the same thing. However, if there is any general or widespread feeling in the House that they would like the Government to confer through the usual channels, as to the particular status of the delegation, I would certainly be willing to receive and consider representations on that.

Mr. Eden: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that, may I ask him to bear in mind that there is also the position in India to be considered? It is very important that we should not raise false hopes of the functions of this commission in India. Therefore, if it goes under Government auspices, it could have terms of reference approved by this House and there would be no room for misunderstandings.

Mr. Morrison: I do not want any misunderstandings. I do not conceive it as a commission. I do not conceive it as having particular terms of reference. I do not think so. I quite agree that one does not want to give any false impressions in India. This is considered to be a useful visit which will make contacts, and will, let us hope, sweeten relations between this Parliament and India, and enrich the knowledge of Parliament itself but, at the end of the day, obviously the


responsibility for policy must rest upon His Majesty's Government responsible to Parliament and this country.

Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not consider again the advisability of a deputation going from this House, not in the nature of a mission from this House, but representative of the dominant party in this House?.

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I think it would be foreign to the traditions of the House and to the spirit of the whole thing if we were to draw this delegation from the majority party in the House only. I think here, at any rate, we must adopt something like the principles of Proportional Representation.

Iieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that in many previous missions the North-East corner of India—Assam and Bengal—was not visited. I hope this delegation will visit that part of India, and especially that it will get into touch with the Moslem leaders of Bengal and Assam.

Mr. Morrison: We had not got as far as the itinerary. I will certainly undertake that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point shall be kept in mind.

Major Wyatt: Could my right hon. Friend make it quite clear—there may be some misunderstanding—that if the ultimate decision of the Indian peoples is that they do not wish India to remain a partner in the British Commonwealth, they may be allowed to make that decision; and also that there will never again be any further mention of Dominion status in connection with India?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think there need be any misapprehension about that. The offer of 1942 included a provision that the treaty contemplated between the new self-governing India and His Majesty's Government would not impose any restrictions on the power of India to decide her future relationship to the remainder of the British Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government stand by that position, though it is, naturally, our hope that India will remain of her own free will, within the British Commonwealth.

Sir Stanley Reed: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whilst thanking him for the open mind he has shown, if he will give very careful consideration to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden)? This is no ordinary occasion. The delegation will be going to India under wholly exceptional conditions when great and far-reaching constitutional changes are pending in India, which will come to a head in March and April. Any Parliamentary delegation going to India is bound to be regarded in India as an official delegation and, therefore, would it not be better to give it that cachet from the very beginning and send it to India under direct Government auspices instead of through the agency of the Empire Parliamentary Association?

Mr. Morrison: I have undertaken to consider the representations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

Sir Ralph Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this matter, bear in mind that there was a Standing Joint Committee on Indian affairs which was empowered to visit India and other places; and will he consider whether that would be a solution?

Mr. Morrison: My memory is not too clear about the point, but I should doubt whether that would be a suitable way out.

Mr. Peter Freeman: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that the failure to solve this problem of India has been due largely to a failure of appreciation of India in this country, and of appreciation by India of this country and also lack of understanding between the countries? Would he indicate what steps he proposes to remove that misunderstanding?

Mr. Morrison: The answer is this step.

Wing-Commander Millington: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of impending changes, he will consider deferring the trial of 300 arrested members of the Indian National Congress so that they may be tried by an Indian court after the elections?

Mr. Morrison: I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend's figure is a very great exaggeration. I do not think it right to deal with that matter now.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister whether it would not have been better to have left out that part of the statement which contains a threat, and whether the Indian National Congress and the Moslem League will be consulted at every stage?

Mr. Morrison: I do not profess to be as strong a believer in firm and ruthless government as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and really I did not detect in this statement any threat to anybody. I merely stated that the Indian Government had the responsibility of government. The fact is there have been certain indications of threats the other way.

Mr. Gallacher: Where the Tories are concerned.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in view of the many suggestions which have been made, reconsideration will also take the form of consultations with all sections of opinion? I think it is possible he may go wrong.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged for the friendly warning, but I did not gather that the main idea was challenged. There was some disagreement about the form of

the delegation, and I will certainly regard that with the greatest friendliness.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Having regard to the growing strength and influence of the trade union movement, may I ask, without wishing to suggest a particular bias, whether the right hon. Gentleman will see that the strongest trade union representation is included in the delegation?

Mr. Morrison: There is no reason why those consulted should not keep that point in mind, but perhaps I ought not to say anything which prejudges the issue at this stage.

Mr. Jennings: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep in mind that those who go to India should know something about India, and should be able to bring home some useful information?

Mrs. Middleton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether opportunity will be given to discuss the statement he has made, otherwise than by question and answer?

Mr. Morrison: I am bound to say, quite apart from the time factor, in regard to which we are in considerable difficulties, I am a little doubtful whether that would be advantageous.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — BUILDING MATERIALS AND HOUSING BILL

Considered in Committee.[Progress, 3rd December.]

[Mr. Hubert Beaumont in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(The Building Materials and Housing Fund.)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, after "be," insert:
laid before Parliament and a copy thereof.
In moving this Amendment I think it is desirable, at the outset, to recall the position left as a result of the decision taken by the Committee last night. The Amendment which I moved yesterday, to the effect that the Minister should prepare his accounts within three months and not within a maximum of eight months, was rejected by the Committee. What, then, is the position arising at the stage which we have now reached? It is that the Minister of Works, going into this business of production and distribution in a big way as he has indicated, is under no obligation, as the Bill is at present drawn, to present or prepare any account except by 30th November following the end of any financial year in the five years during which he will be operating. That is a long period to ask Parliament to wait. Let us see what the Minister has to do. On or before 30th November following the expiration of the financial year all he has to do is to transmit his accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who shall examine and certify the accounts and lay copies, together with his report thereon, before Parliament. There have been examples during the war and, no doubt, earlier, when this process has been an exceedingly long one.
It appears to my hon. Friends and myself that the Bill, as drawn, gives every likelihood that Parliament will be de-

prived of any knowledge of the extent of the success or failure of this operation for a grossly unreasonable time. Accordingly, this Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper—in line 3, leave out "copies thereof together with"—are intended to secure that after the termination of the eight months, during which the Minister has been drawing up his accounts, Parliament shall see the result. I can see no solid ground of objection to such a proposal. The accounts, we hope, will be correctly and intelligibly drawn up and in a fit state to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Ought we not to see them at the same time as the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Ought we not to see them within eight months of the termination of the year's financial and other transactions? We suggest that this simultaneous presentation is desirable and that the accounts prepared under the subsection should be laid before Parliament and a copy thereof submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General who would then proceed to examine and certify them and make his report.
In the case of the earlier Amendment, which proposed that the Minister should draw up his accounts within three months and not eight months, the only argument that was used to justify the refusal to accept the proposal was that it had never been done before. It is very difficult to check a negative statement of that kind, but apart from the difficulty of checking, an argument based on what is alleged to be precedent is most unsatisfactory. These operations are going to be extremely important. They may involve great loss to the community, to the taxpayers. All of us—I am sure I can include the right hon. Gentleman—are gravely disturbed about the cost of the operations which were conducted and, as far as I know are still being conducted by the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Aircraft Production, and is now President of the Board of Trade. I refer, of course, to the aluminium temporary houses of which about 55,000, I understand, are going to be made, each having an area of 600 square feet, at a cost very considerably in excess of the figure at which private enterprise is going to be allowed to build houses with 1,000 square feet floor area. If such things can take place under the encouragement of a Socialist Minister it is surely right that


this House should see the effect of this trading and production function, which the Minister of Works is being given under this Bill. I have thought carefully about it and I can see no possible reason why the Minister's accounts should not be laid before Parliament at the same time as a copy is transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General? If that is done, we shall see in December of any year the effect of the Minister's operations during the 12 months ended in the preceding April. What reason can there be for asking Parliament to wait for an indefinite period, which, if previous experience is a guide, might well mean another 12 months, before seeing the result of the operations.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlin-son): I am sorry to have to begin again today, by saying "No" to an Amendment. It may surprise the right hon. and learned Gentleman if 1 use the same argument—though I do not see any reason why it should not be used as an argument—that that which was thought good enough by Parliament for a score of years before I came here, should remain in operation. It is not the only argument by any means, but if you are going to make a change there should be some very good reason for making it. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks the Committee to do is to depart from accepted Parliamentary procedure for all accounts of this kind. Once again I want to draw attention to the fact that this is not the first time the Government has done business, whether in a big way or a little way, and all Government accounts of this kind come before the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The question was raised yesterday whether or not the Treasury could be expected to live tip to its reputation when dealing with Ministry of Works accounts of this kind, and there now seems to be doubt as to the efficiency, or effectiveness, or purposefulness of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

345 p.m.

Mr. Willink: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some grounds for that statement.

Mr. Tomlinson: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will let me finish my argument before he begins to question it. The Comptroller and Auditor

General is an officer of Parliament, whose duty is to examine accounts, and to draw the attention of Parliament to any item requiring special attention. Yesterday, in the Committee we were told that no accounts would ever be submitted by a company, which could be taken as exemplary in this matter, until they had been audited. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking is that before the auditor has seen the accounts and has gone through them, they should be presented to Parliament. If it is difficult sometimes, as hon. Members confessed yesterday, to understand Government finance, and if the Opposition were in earnest in wanting to spell out line by line the way in which we should make out the accounts of this particular Government undertaking, then I suggest that they would be ready to wait a little longer until the Comptroller and Auditor General, with his specific knowledge, had gone through the accounts. They could then confine themselves to things that needed special attention, and as a result the Committee would probably learn more from the accounts than if they had been presented to Parliament earlier. Whatever may be said, it does seem to me that it would be quite inappropriate for accounts to be presented to the House unaudited, at the same time as they are sent to the auditor. I do not know of a company in any part of the country which does that, and I do not see why the Government should be asked to depart from normal procedure simply because they are themselves undertaking a job.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: If the right hon. Gentleman had not so ruthlessly destroyed the previous Amendment, which sought to reduce the period in which accounts are submitted, there might be a case for the argument he has now put forward. But I cannot accept his argument that because it was never done before, we are never to improve our ways. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was open to suggestions which led to progress and to improvement in machinery, and that he would give such a proposal careful thought. It seems to me that if the Government are going in for business in a big way, and if that business is going to be efficient, there is nothing for them to fear in the early publication of the accounts. If the right hon. Gentleman had only seen his way to be a little more


friendly to the Amendment of my right hon and learned Friend, it might have done something to allay the great disturbance which now exists in the minds of many people who would otherwise not have suspected anything else inside this Bill. [Hon. Members: "What do you suspect now?"] I am only speaking for myself, but I do not see any desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to disclose to Parliament whether his actions have been successful or a failure, and whether they have led to efficiency or inefficiency in the conduct of the business. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not adopt a similar attitude towards every consideration put forward by hon. Members on this side of the Committee.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I would not have intervened in this matter had it not been for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower). He put forward no argument in justification of this Amendment. What, in effect, he told the Committee was that if the Minister had been a little more kindly and considerate, in all probability this absurd Amendment would not have been on the Order Paper at all. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment said was this: Assuming that these accounts come before this House before they have been examined, audited and certified as correct by the Auditor-General, what would the real value of these accounts be to them? The first thing the right hon. and learned Gentleman would put to the Minister would be "Are you sure that these accounts are correct? Have they been properly audited, and have they been certified by the Department and by the officer who invariably issues a certificate of this kind before they are presented to the House?'' The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the remotest hint of the utter absurdity of piling figures of this kind on to the House, when nobody in the House would be in a position to say whether they were correct or incorrect. It looks as if this Amendment has been inspired more by a spirit of sheer cussed-ness, than by any intention of improving the Bill. I am forced to that conclusion by the completely negative contribution made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it.

Lieut.-Colonel Derek Walker-Smith: If I may address myself to the point made by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies), I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman relies upon a precedent suited to a more leisurely age than the present. The procedure on which he relies may have been suitable for the time in which it was fashioned, but those were not times in which this dynamic procedure of bulk purchase and State manufacture had been introduced. No one on this side of the Committee suggests that we should do away with the audit and examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Of course it is true that the Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of Parliament, but what is suggested by this Amendment is that two processes should go on simultaneously: There should be an opportunity for, if you like, the amateur examination of these accounts quickly by the House, and also for the professional examination of these accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Member for Merthyr suggested that these accounts could be of no value until they had been audited and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It may well be that the Member knows his own Minister and the Government better than I do, but I would be the last to suggest that an account prepared by the Minister under the terms of Subsection (5) of this Clause would be of no value to the House until it had gone through the Comptroller and Auditor General. What we want is an early opportunity for the House to inspect these accounts and take exception to any patent matters of error, or whatever it may be. There will then be, concurrently, the professional examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General and a subsequent opportunity for the House to comment on any latent errors which this examination might bring to light. I submit that that is an eminently practical and democratic procedure which ought to be followed.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am surprised at the argument put forward by the Minister of Works, on two grounds. The first is that he omitted to describe this as a wrecking Amendment, and the second, that he put forward an argument which, if it had come from the benches behind me, would have been met with howls of derision from the benches behind the


right hon. Gentleman—the argument that we could not do this because it had never been done before— [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's words arc recorded in Hansard and if I have not given the facts accurately, that will be clearly apparent in Hansard. But I listened with care to what he said, and I think that I am stating correctly its effect. He went on to say that the present practice should remain in operation. I suggest that that is a most unsatisfactory argument. I want to deal quite shortly with each of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, because this is a point of some substance. He said that this was not the first time that the Government had done business. With that we entirely agree, but it is the first time that the Government have said that they are going to engage in big business of this sort. We have—I am speaking from memory—some instances within our knowledge of the laying of accounts before Parliament, where a Government have been to some extent concerned in the conduct of business. We can look back and see whether the procedure which previously existed can really continue with regard to this big business. It is true that all accounts go before the Comptroller and Auditor General for his report and certificate; but are not these accounts correct when they are sent out by the Minister of Works to the Auditor General? Does the Auditor General fulfil the ordinary role of an accountant for a company?

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the purpose of an accountant of a company is to twist the figures?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not suggesting anything of the sort, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not. I am suggesting that the analogy between the accounts of a company, and sending the accounts of Government business to the Auditor General is not quite correct, because surely the accounts are gone through by gentlemen with good qualifications before they leave the Ministry of Works. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to say that his accounts are not fit for inspection by him or anyone else, before they have been seen by the Auditor General? The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but in the case of the accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation has not something like—I am speaking

from memory—eighteen months elapsed between the end of the financial year and the laying of these accounts before Parliament?
We on this side of the Committee are interested in this matter, and interested to see how it gets on. 1 should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman—I do not want to cast any aspersions upon his efficiency—thinks this is going to be wonderful big business. We, on our side, have some doubts. We say that the matter should be put to the proof of these accounts and that we ought to see these accounts at the earliest possible moment. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he is right, why should not these accounts be laid, before they go to the Auditor-General, with the knowledge that we can see and judge from these accounts what the position is, and with the knowledge that within a few months we shall have the report of the Auditor-General to confirm our views, or otherwise or to draw different points to our attention?
Why should not we see the figures when the accounts are completed? We may have to wait a full year before we get the accounts of the previous year's operation. Does that happen with a limited company? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] In war time it may be. I am under the impression that in peace time certain steps are taken with regard to delay in presentation of accounts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to deal with this point in a cursory manner. If he brushes it on one side and says our proposal is a departure from precedent, and that it would be better to keep this matter quiet until some time has elapsed, that may give rise to suspicions that this Government enterprise is not in fact being so well conducted, as we on this side of the Committee hope it will be.

4.0 p.m.

Major Cecil Poole: I would invite the mover of the Amendment to answer one question. When will there be laid before Parliament the accounts for the very large Government expenditure incurred under his jurisdiction at the Ministry of Health in the development of the Portal house?

Mr. Willink: The answer is that no money was spent on that account by the Ministry of Health.

Major Poole: It may be that the amount spent on the development of the Portal house did not fall upon the Vote of the Ministry of Health, but the development of that project was very largely in the joint hands of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was then the Minister of Health, and of the Minister of Works.

Mr. Willink: The hon. and gallant Member was not, if I remember aright, a Member of this House at the time of the Portal house. If he was he is under a complete misapprehension, because at the beginning the development of the Portal house was not within the joint jurisdiction of the Departments at all. If questions are raised about it now, I would like to know why questions were not raised at the time, or shortly afterwards. The gross abuse of the present Minister of Health in regard to this matter has no parallel, and was not anticipated during the last I8 months of the last Parliament after the original showing of the Portal house.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I would suggest that these observations are becoming rather irrelevant.

Mr. Pritt: I will not keep this point under discussion much longer, but I should like to examine it in this way. The Amendment has been put forward with the utmost seriousness and plausibility from the other side, but what it amounts to is that in connection with this particular business Parliament is to have the opportunity to do everything twice. In the first place hon. Members opposite want the accounts unaudited and uncertified, and I think it is only right to suppose that they want them for some purpose. The purpose must be to examine them and ask questions upon them in this House. Then, when they have had a few months of that, the Comptroller and Auditor General will come forward with the audited accounts, and they will start all over again and do it twice. As a contribution to Parliamentary ups-and-downs I can understand it, but as an aid to building I cannot.
One hon. and gallant Member opposite saw the folly of it, and so he developed it rather neatly by saying, although it is not in the words of the Amendment, that it would be understood that the first examination was to discover patent errors, and the second to discover latent errors,

and then, I presume, after that they will want a Parliamentary inquiry to discover which were patent and which were latent. The whole thing is absurd. Why do they want this? Because they know the mess they made over the Portal house and think the present Government are as stupid as they were, or else it is because they want to waste time. Then they say that it is no argument for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that his method has worked perfectly well in the past. We on this side know that you can often do good by changes based upon previous experience, but they want a change from one single examination, to the lunatic business of two examinations, one for the patent errors and the other for those which are latent.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman has made the case extremely clear to himself, though not to anybody else, by his method of digesting other people's arguments and then regurgitating them in a slightly different form and in a rather offensive manner. I want to put this point seriously to the right hon. Gentleman. We have never suggested that our Amendment proposes something entirely new which is never practised in private enterprise, and which it would be improper to introduce into our general form of procedure. I ask him whether it is not the case with every company, that its accounts are submitted to the directors before they are audited. After they have been submitted to the directors and examined and checked, then they are audited.
If that is the case, and it is the case, it raises the whole question of the part which Parliament is to play in State enterprises. Now that the Government as a whole are indulging in State enterprise in production and distribution I am not sure whether the present structure for the Parliamentary control of expenditure is anything like equal to keeping pace with the activities of the Government. It may be that this Amendment does not go nearly far enough, and that we may have to consider at a later stage whether we ought not to sketch out some form of Special Committee procedure to examine the trading activities of the Government. It may be that the Parliamentary structure, which was designed at a


time when Government activities in production were not in the picture at all, is not now sufficient, but during this intermediate period, until Parliament has designed some form of machinery, some form of consultative body, would it not be better to adopt this Amendment, because the Minister may find that method a particular protection to himself and his Department as the work goes on?

Mr. Messer: 1 would like to answer one pointmade by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). He said, rightly, that draft accounts are submitted to a board of directors prior to going to the auditor, but that is by no means analogous to the present situation, for the board of directors in this House of Commons will be sitting on the Government Front Bench. The Members on the other side will not be directors.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We maintain that Parliament as a whole is responsible.

Mr. Messer: In point of fact the responsibility for every order will rest on the Government Front Bench, in exactly the same way as responsibility for the direction of a firm is with the directors. The directors, after the accounts have been audited, submit them to a general meeting of the shareholders.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Does not the final responsibility for every act of this House rest on this House?

Mr. Messer: I am quite prepared to admit that as a good House of Commons man, but the responsibility for what the Government do must rest on the Government. After the auditors had examined the accounts, they would then be submitted to the whole of the House, and the House must take responsibility for what it does in the same way as the mass of shareholders in a company will accept or reject their audited accounts.
The hon. Member is asking too much in asking that draft accounts should be submitted to us. What would be the argument used by hon. Members opposite? It would be, "How do we know that these figures are not hiding something? How do we know that these accounts are correct? They have not been examined by anybody who is independent." Then the Government would

get up and say, in the words of the hon. Member opposite, "We have on the staff of the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Health civil servants who are quite capable of submitting these accounts.'' But obviously they have an interest in things. Auditors must be those who have no such interest. The Auditor-General is independent. He would not be affected by what a Minister might say, as would be a civil servant who was auditing the accounts of his own Department. The Department would prepare the accounts and the House has a right to consider them when they have been certified as correct.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson Hicks: I wish to refer to the illustration which the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has just given us. His analogy is not accurate. The Members of this House are not like the shareholders of a company. We have not put up the money. We have put up a reasonable proportion of it, but the money for this speculation—I do not think it is quite right to call it an investment—is put up by the community at large. Parliament are the board of directors, and the Government Front Bench is the collective managing director of the concern. The hon. Member has introduced into the picture a new building baron. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works will, no doubt, go down to history as one of the new building barons of the City of London.

Mr. Messer: We shall not be so barren as were Members opposite.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: There is something far more serious than these illustrations, and that is the question of the responsibility of Parliament for the expenditure of this vast sum of money. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) was anxious to know-why these accounts were wanted. I have no hesitation, speaking for myself, in answering him. Why I want to see the accounts of this speculation at the earliest possible time is because I am one of those who are responsible for the voting of this vast sum of money, even though I may not wish it to be voted. It is the money of the taxpayers, and I want to know as quickly as possible how it is being spent, and I say that the House has a right to see these accounts as speedily as they can be prepared at the expiration


of the year referred to in the Clause. Their auditing and their subsequent production in a final form is a different matter. In a speculation of this sort the very least that is due to us, having regard to our responsibilities, is that we should be able to examine the accounts as early as possible. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was by no means novel, not a new thing, for the Government to embark upon enterprise in industry. That may be so, but when in the past the Governments have sought to compete with public or private enterprise the results have been by no means such as to establish confidence in one's mind, and when the Government are embarking on such a wide undertaking as this the House has every right to an early presentation of the accounts.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) made a good deal of fun about our wishing to see two different sets of accounts. As a matter of fact I hope he will not see two different sets of accounts. I have never known it to be the duty of an auditor to change the figures in an account. That is not his business at all.

Mr. Pritt: Mr. Pritt rose—

Commander Galbraith: I—

Mr. Pritt: Surely the hon. and gallant Member will give way.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and gallant Member does not give way, the hon. and learned Member cannot speak.

Mr. Pritt: Mr. Pritt rose—

Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. and learned Member let me finish?

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. Is it not a rule of this House that when an hon. Member has been directly named in connection with something that he has said, and he wishes to say that he has been misrepresented, that the hon. Member who is speaking will give way to him?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, it is entirely within the discretion of the hon. and gallant Member himself.

Mr. Pritt: I will just say that he is not telling the truth.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. and learned Member to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Pritt: I will withdraw the statement that he was not telling the truth about me, and say that he was making a wholly inaccurate statement.

Commander Galbraith: I do not flunk there is any need for all this heat on the part of the hon. and learned Member. All I said was that I understood him to make considerable play—and hon. Members can say whether I was right or wrong—about our examining two sets of accounts. [Interruption.]

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. Is it right for an hon. Member to describe the hon. and gallant Member as a stubborn little fool?

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not hear that remark.

Commander Galbraith: I did not hear it either, but if the hon. and learned Member wishes to describe me in that way—

The Deputy-Chairman: As the remark was not heard, may I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member now deals with the Amendment which is before the Committee?

Commander Galbraith: It is hardly my fault.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not attributing blame to anyone. I simply asked the hon. and gallant Member if he would now confine himself to the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: I should never have departed from the Amendment had I not been interrupted, and rather rudely interrupted. I was saying that it is not an auditor's duty to alter figures in any account. His duty is to certify either that the account is correct, or otherwise. Therefore the accounts presented to us direct from the Department, will be exactly the same as the accounts we have had from the Auditor-General, but we will have a report with the second lot of accounts. It will be perfectly reasonable for us to comment on the first set of accounts, if there was anything in the report which drew our attention to other matters. We would be perfectly in order in dealing with that when it arose. All that we are asking is that we should have the result at the earliest possible moment.


Surely the Minister wants to show how skilful his negotiations and operations have been? I think we have a right to know them. The analogy drawn between this House and a board of directors is not entirely correct. In this case the House are not the directors; they are the managers.

Mr. Maude: May I try to bring a gentle zephyr into the Committee on this rather turbulent afternoon? I welcome the presence of the Minister of Health. I feel grateful to him today, because he has recently helped me to dig the First Lord of the Admiralty out of the U.S. naval base at Exeter. Nevertheless, I must say this. Surely it must occur to Members on the other side of the Committee that to resist this Amendment is very foolish. I will tell the Committee why. Let us see whether there is not some reason. The Subsection says:
Any account prepared under this Subsection shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November next following the expiration of the financial year in question …
Where have we got to there? We have got to November next year. From remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade it can be seen that he is clearly aware of the extreme urgency of the national interest in trade in general. It is of vital importance that we should do our best in every direction, within the next three years. If, in fact, the two right hon. Gentlemen make a success of this—excellent. The nation will be pleased and delighted. But why should not hon. Members on all sides have the opportunity of watching, at the earliest possible moment, their success? I am assuming for one moment for the purposes of the argument that they succeed, that they have a tremendous success: Why on earth should the Minister not come with his accounts at the earliest reasonable moment, which will be about a year from now, instead of after another delay of a considerable period—because there will be a considerable delay after that date, before the accounts would reach Parliament?
The impression I am trying to give is that if nothing of this nature is done, and if refuge is taken behind arguments such as have been given today and in that way a very considerable delay is achieved, it is open to any reasonable

man of any or of no political persuasion, to say, "Why on earth will they not give way on a small matter like this? The Opposition have taken a chance. They will not be able to come down to the House and say 'We do not know whether these figures are right or wrong; you probably cooked them.' They begged for the figures themselves. Why not come down with the figures?" There can be no reason for resisting this Amendment unless there is a lurking feeling at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, first of all that it is very much better not to bother about money at all. That I conceive to be wholly wrong, and it would not stand the test of argument or debate. If it is decided that the matter should be carefully controlled from a financial point of view, why not let us have the figures at the earliest possible opportunity?
As far as precedent is concerned in such a matter as this, what happens in this House and in this country in the next three years will be without any precedent whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite should cheer immediately at that. They are determined, and we have heard again and again that they have come with a mandate, to do something epoch making. Is their silence now because, at the back of their minds there are a thousand and one things that are worrying them and their supporters? The right hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but I can assure hon. Members that all their supporters are not laughing. Every Member of this Committee knows quite well that the future prosperity of this country is by no means assured, and it is absolutely necessary, in the view of this side of the Committee, that proper steps should be taken to get into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that accounting, and the rapid disclosure of figures which would show the progress of a vast experiment, should be his first consideration. I believe it sincerely and if others believe it, I cannot conceive why this thing should not be done? If the reasons advanced are the only two reasons, they are not sufficient, in these exceptional times. If there are other reasons let us have them. It is becoming a habit here for hon. Members, not merely on this side of the Committee, but Members on all sides, to ask right hon. Gentlemen many questions, to which there is no sort of answer whatever.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 277.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[4.25 p.m.


Aitken, Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Harvey, Air Comdre. A. V.
Osborne, C.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Barlow, Sir J.
Howard, Hon. A.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Hurd, A.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R.
Jennings, R.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Ross, Sir R.


Bower, N.
Keeling, E. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, Lt. W. S. (Bucklow)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Carson, E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Snadden, W. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Corbett, Lieut. Col. U. (Ludlow)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sutcliffe, H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marsden, Comdr. A.
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Drewe, C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Duthie, W. S.
Maude, j. C.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Eccles, D. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
York, C.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Nicholson, G.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Nield, B. (Chester)



Glyn, Sir R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Nutting, Anthony
Commander Agnew and Mr. Studholme.




NOES.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Daggar, G.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Daines, P.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)


Allighan, Garry
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Alpass, J. H.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Buchanan, G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Attewell, H. C.
Burden, T. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Austin, H. L.
Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Awbery, S. S.
Callaghan, James
Diamond, J,


Ayles, W. H.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Dobbie, W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Chater, D.
Dodds, N. N.


Bacon, Miss A.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Douglas, F, C. R.


Barstow, P. G.
Clitherow, R.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Bartlett, V.
Cluse, W. S.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Barton, C.
Cobb, F. A.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Beattie, J. (Belfast W.)
Cocks, F. S.
Dye, S.


Bechervaise, A, E.
Coldrick, W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Benson, G.
Collick, P.
Edelman, M.


Berry, H.
Collindridge, F.
Edwards, A. (Middesbrough, E.)


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Collins, V. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Binns, J.
Cook, T. F.
Farthing, W. J.


Blackburn, Capt. A. R.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Foot, M. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Forman, J. C.


Bottomley, A. G.
Corvedale, Viscount
Fraser, T. (Hamiton)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Cove, W. G.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A
Freeman, P. (Newport)




Gaitskell, H. T. N
MacMillan, M. K.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simmons, C. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Skinnard, F. W.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Gilzean, A.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Gooch, E. G.
Mathers, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Goodrich, H. E.
Maxton, J.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Solley, L. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Medland, H. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Grierson, E.
Mikardo, Ian
Stanford, W.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R
Steele, T.


Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Montague, F.
Stokes, R. R.


Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Strauss, G. R.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Stubbs, A. E.


Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hardy, E. A.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Moyle, A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Haworth, J.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Nally, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hicks, G.
Naylor, T. E.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'g'h, E.)


Hobson, C. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thorneycroft, H.


Holman, P.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Thurtle, E.


Horabin, T. L.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Tiffany, S.


House, G.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Tolley, L.


Hoy, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hubbard, T.
Oldfield, W. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Usborne, Henry


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Janner, B.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Viant, S. P.


John, W.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Walker, G. H.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pearson, A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Peart, Capt. T. F. 
Watkins, T. E.


Keenan, W.
Perrins, W.
Watson, W. M.


Kenyon, C.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Key, C. W.
Poole, Major C. C. (Lichfield)
Weitzman, D.


Kinley, J.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Kirby, B. V.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
White, G. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Kirkwood, D.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lang, G.
Pritt, D. N.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lavers, S.
Proctor, W. T.
Wigg, Col. G. E. C.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pryde,D. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Leonard, W.
Randall, H. E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lever, Flying-Officer N. H.
Ranger, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Levy, B. W.
Rankin, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Rees-Williams, Lt,-Col. D. R.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Reeves, J.
Williamson, T.


Lipson, D. L.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Willis, E.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rhodes, H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Logan, D. G.
Richards, R.
Wilson, J. H.


Longden, F.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wise, Major F. J.


Lyne, A. W.
Robens, A.
Woods, G. S.


McAdam, W.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


McAllister, G.
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Yates, V. F.


McEntee, V. La T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Mack, J. D.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Zilliacus, K.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rogers, G. H. R.



Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Royle, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


McKinlay, A. S.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Mr. R. J. Taylor and Captain Blenkinsop.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.



McLeavy, F.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(Payments into Building Materials and Housing Fund by the Minister of Health.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after "materials," insert "including the cost of those materials."
This is an Amendment about which I am optimistic, and I hope that the right

hon. Gentleman will accept it without any heat being engendered in this Committee. It is in the nature of a drafting Amendment to clarify what I think is the intention of the Clause as viewed from both sides of the Committee. The Clause says:
If the Minister has purchased building materials consisting of structures ready for erection as houses.
That is to say that, if he has bought part of the permanent prefabricated house, that is the first part that has to be specified


before the Clause comes into play at all. It goes on about the Minister of Health
being satisfied that the cost of constructing houses from those materials.
It is arguable that all that can be taken into account in estimating the cost of constructing houses from those materials would be the cost of putting the purchased parts together. I do not think that that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Government. I feel sure that if a Law Officer were here, he would confirm my argument that it is, to say the least, arguable that, from the drafting of this Clause—in the way the purchase of building materials is referred to in the first case, and the cost of constructing the houses from those materials in the second case—in estimating the cost of constructing the houses you do not include the cost of purchasing the parts to be constructed and put together. I feel sure that the intention is that the Minister of Health shall take into account all the costs of the permanent prefabricated houses and compare those costs with the cost of the traditional houses of a similar size. Believing that to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, we move to insert, after the word "materials," the words "including the cost of those materials," in order to put the matter absolutely beyond doubt. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, in this instance, depart from the argument that this has never been done before, and will, for once, accept an Amendment.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I have examined this matter very carefully and have consulted those who know much more about it than either the hon. Member or myself, and they assure me that the words of the Clause bear the construction which the hon. Member desires, and that an alteration is not necessary. If it were, I would immediately accede to it, but as I understand the Clause does exactly what the hon. Member wishes, I am sure that he will not wish to press this matter further.

Mr. Willink: The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way towards satisfying us, but as one who has considered the Clause, I am bound to say that I still feel doubt about the advice he has received. It is difficult as a matter of ordinary English to state that the phrase, "cost of constructing 'A out of B in-

cludes the original cost of B. That is really the point on which the right hon. Gentleman says he has been assured. I would like him to say that he would look at it again and take advice from the highest quarters available to the Government. We know that the intention is common; all we desire is to see that the Statute is clearly expressed.

Mr. Bevan: I am prepared to consult with the authorities responsible and also with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to see whether these words bear the interpretation we commonly desire. If they do not, I shall be prepared to accept such an Amendment. But I am assured that the words bear the interpretation we all desire.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, leave out "substantially."
I move this Amendment for the purpose of eliciting from the Minister a declaration of policy upon a matter which particularly concerns the local authorities who must be engaged to a very large extent in the provision of housing accommodation in the future. The intention of this Clause, as I understand it, is to prevent the local authorities from being required to bear a greater burden by reason of the necessity of erecting prefabricated houses than they would have borne if it had been possible to supply the demand quickly by means of houses of traditional methods of construction. It is also, I understand, the intention of the Clause that the expenditure which the Minister of Works incurs should, in the end, be recouped from some source. Therefore, where the cost of prefabricated houses exceeds that of houses of the traditional system, the Minister of Health will come to the aid of the local authorities and make good the difference. That is only equitable. These houses may not be distributed in any even fashion throughout the country and one local authority might be required to have a very much larger proportion of them than another. If that was so and local authorities were reqiured to bear the excess cost, then it is clear that the burden might be distributed between them in a


very uneven and inequitable fashion. Therefore, I would like to know whether, in my interpretation of this, the Minister will adhere to the principle, and that the word "substantially" is introduced here merely for the purpose of avoiding discussion about trivial sums of difference over which there might conceivably be an argument whether the prefabricated house was, or was not, of traditional construction.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The real assurance that the hon. Member can obtain is that it would be quite impossible for a Minister of Health to live agreeably with the local authorities if the Minister of Health tried any sharp practice. It is very difficult to give a definition of what ''substantially'' really means. It would be as difficult to give an interpretation, if I had used the word in a converse sense as saying "anything that is not trivial"; what does "trivial" mean? The fact of the matter is that it is not the intention of the Ministry of Health whether they supply wholly prefabricated houses or part prefabricated houses to the local authorities, to charge the local authorities if there is an excess, substantially, over the cost of traditional houses, and there has to be a little come and go in this matter.
I do not think there is any reason for apprehension. It really means we cannot have strict accounting and say we shall charge the local authority exactly what a particular prefabricated house cost and no more than that. The amount may be very small in excess, and we may have to even out the price in different parts of the country because the cost of prefabricating a particular house in certain parts of the country might be more or less than that of prefabricating the same kind of house in other parts of the country. It may be possible to even out the cost where the amount is not substantially in excess of the cost of a traditional house. But I can assure the hon. Member that it is not the intention of the Ministry of Health to land local authorities in difficulties in this matter, nor would any Minister of Health be able to live happily with local authorities if he did land them into difficulties.

Mr. Charles Williams: I do not look at the Minister of Health with the suspicion of his hon. Friends behind him and I was very struck by the attitude

of mind which the hon. Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Douglas) adopted towards his own Ministry. I felt there was really hardly any need as far as I was concerned—and I can only speak for myself—for the Minister to assure the Committee that the hon. Member need not expect any sharp practice from him. The right hon. Gentleman obviously thought it necessary to give that explanation, but I did not feel it was necessary. The Minister went on from that to deal with the position as between the Government and local authorities. I thought the right hon. Gentleman stated his case with his customary modesty. If there is a mutiny over this particular Amendment, I cannot promise to give support to the Minister in the Lobby, but I may perhaps be allowed to appeal to his followers not to carry it too far on this occasion, because I am convinced of what the Minister has said—that where a local authority is to put up those houses, the Ministry will, in all probability, do their best to carry out a fair bargain and give them compensation.
There are, of course, obvious difficulties which occur between one local authority and another. The putting up of these houses in a flat area is comparatively easy and not a very costly. proceeding, but in a hilly area, the difficulties are rather greater. While I come to the support of the Minister on this particular occasion—I cannot offer to do it very often—I think I can take it from him that he will have full regard to the position of authorities in areas where the local difficulties, owing to the contour of the land, are much worse than in other cases. Speaking for a local authority which has a very hilly area I welcome the assurance he has given and I hope the hon. Member for North Battersea who seems to have a suspicious mind on this matter, will not carry his suspicion too far, because, after all, he was returned to support this Government.

Mr. Douglas: In spite of the observations to which the Committee has just listened, I am not going to be tempted into saying anything more than to thank the Minister for the assurance he has given, and which, indeed, I expected him to give. I am sure it will be very satisfying to the local authorities, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Willink: Before the Committee accords leave to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, I would like the Minister to consider again whether the Statute would not be better drafted without this word. I always feel a little uncomfortable when the word "substantially" is in a Statute because no one knows what it means. There is a well known legal principle—De minimis non curat lex—and if any local authority raises a pettifogging point about a pound or thirty shillings or anything of that kind, the Minister can safely rest on that principle. But, if he is resting on something substantial, there is ground for great discussion on the meaning of that word and, without any collaboration with the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Douglas), I felt that his Amendment was a sound Amendment as a matter of drafting. The statement of principle by the Minister of Health was entirely satisfactory to me because it is important that local authorities should not be dissuaded from housing activity by. reason of the heavy cost put on them.

Mr.Hopkin Morris: As I understand his explanation, the Minister of Health, in interpreting the Statute, would take into account the position of the site, which is a matter of great importance in relation to rural housing. The remoteness of the site might add to the cost. If it is interpreted as the right hon. Gentleman stated, there is no objection, but the word "substantially" is not a satisfactory word to put in a Statute Book. One does not know what it means. One can look in the dictionary for the word "reasonably," and one finds that it would be unreasonable to define ''reasonably.'' While it is the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that we want, I would like to see a word in the Clause, which carries it into effect.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Minister used words, as have other hon. Members, which would seem to imply that this Clause only covers the cost of materials. As I read it, it covers the additional cost of construction. Would the Minister make that clear when he replies?

Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members, I think, would find that their fears would be greater if the word were not in the Clause. If I take it out, the point would then be confined and I would have to charge local

authorities exactly what that local authority would have to pay for a traditional house of the same size, and that would mean great disparity between local authorities, for instance, in rural areas. The word "substantially" is a necessary shock absorber. Therefore, I ask that hon. Members should not press the Amendment. What we desire to do is to iron out the variations in the cost of these prefabricated houses, so that they would be, over all, no higher than the cost of analogous houses of a particular type, but not in a particular area, on a precise and particular site. Take for example the term "traditional" house. How are you to define "traditional house"? It is not a measurement capable of exactitude any more than "substantial." We have to put in this word in order to indicate that the Ministry are not proposing to charge a particular authority, in whatever circumstances that authority may be, no matter how difficult it may be to put the house up, exactly what it would cost to put up a house traditionally. Therefore the word "substantial" acts as a cushion. I hope, with that explantaion, the Committee will allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, after "cost," insert:
being prices which will not reduce the full cost of construction below the cost of constructing a house of a similar size by traditional methods.
Perhaps the next Amendment, in page 3, line 15, at end, insert:
but which are not less than the full cost of construction of houses of a similar size by traditional methods.
could be considered also as they are on the same point. They are related to something which has just been said by the Minister of Health. I found his last exposition of the advantage of the word "substantial" a little obscure. I entirely agree that it is not easy to ascertain in any particular case, what the cost of constructing houses of a similar size, by traditional methods, might be. For example, it might be desirable to build prefabricated houses on some site which would not have been used for traditional houses. But, broadly speaking, I read this Clause as having the intention, not that the Minister of Health should put into the Ministry of Works Fund sums larger


than those incurred by the fact that a particular local authority was having factory-made houses rather than normal houses, but that what should go into the Ministry of Works Fund is the extra expense caused to the community, and that the Minister's Vote was going to carry that extra burden by reason of the fact that, particularly in the early stages, factory-made houses would be likely to be more expensive than traditional houses. The intention is not that local authorities by reason of the fact that they were getting prefabricated houses—it will not be all local authorities that will get factory-made houses—should get an advantage over the position which would have been theirs if their houses had all been of the normal character.
5.0 p.m.
Accordingly, these two Amendments—whether or not their drafting is entirely apt, and this is of course a matter which requires careful drafting—have the object of binding the Minister of Works to sell to local authorities at prices comparable with those which would fall upon them if they were buying or building houses of a traditional character. I do not want to impart any element of suspicion or unfriendly suggestion, but I should have thought it right for the Minister of Health and the Minister of Works to have some principle in this Clause as to the prices at which these factory-made houses are to be disposed of to local authorities. As things stand, there is simply a reference to arrangements made by the Minister of Works for selling under cost, and no indication of the principle on which that diminution of the figure below cost is to be made. No standard is set, and in substance I apprehend that the intention of both the Ministers must be that the local authority and the taxpayer in respect of that local authority, as far as the housing subsidy is concerned, should be in the same position with regard to the factory-made house as they would be with regard to a house of traditional character.
I did not quite follow all that the Minister of Health said with regard to ironing out and the cushion provided by the word "substantially." It is not, I imagine, the intention to ease the lot of particular authorities—poor rural authorities, for example—by this roundabout way of saying, "You are a poor

authority, therefore you shall have prefabricated houses very much cheaper than it would cost you to build normal houses." That does not seem to be the right way to deal with any financial difficulty experienced by a poor authority. Those difficulties should be dealt with in another way. The working operation of the factory-made programme would surely be more satisfactory if a situation is arrived at whereby there is no bias in favour of the factory-made house over the traditional house, by reason of a financial consideration as between the local authority and the Treasury or the Ministry of Works. Accordingly, the purpose of these Amendments, the spirit of which I hope will be accepted, is that that principle should be explicit in the Bill when it finally passes into law. The principle is that the Minister of Works, either in selling building materials or making arrangements for the construction of houses, should endeavour, broadly, to arrive at a position in which he will get from the local authority the same figure that it would have cost them to build or to buy another type of house.

Mr. Bevan: The Committee need not fear the consequences of the words used in the Bill. In the first place it is not the intention of the Government to supply prefabricated houses to local authorities below the cost of traditional houses of the same type. We should soon find ourselves in trouble with the Treasury if we attempted to do so. In other words, if the Ministry of Health made payment into the Ministry of Works Fund, the purpose of which would be not to enable the local authorities to get houses at the same cost as the traditional house, but to give the local authorities a concealed subsidy for the prefabricated house, we should soon get ourselves into very serious trouble. Furthermore, it would be a form of competition with traditional building that I would not desire to encourage, because it would not be a form of competition which the traditional building organisations would look upon with favour. At the same time, if prefabricated houses can be produced at less than the cost of traditional houses without any cost falling upon the Exchequer, then we cannot agree that any words should be used to prevent prefabricated houses from underselling traditional houses of the same type.
What we obviously must not do is to use this medium for the purpose of artificially reducing the cost of the prefabricated houses, where it is not made necessary by the additional cost of construction. In point of fact, we are perfectly clear as to what we are after in this matter. The whole purpose of it, of course, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, is that the local authorities cannot be expected to engage in experiments of this sort, and therefore the Government must carry out the experiments for them. If those experiments cost more than the local authority would have to pay for the cost of a traditional house, then the Exchequer must bear the cost of the experimentation. It would, however, be deplorable if we were unable to make experiments of this sort, and I am quite certain that that is not the right hon. Gentleman's intention. Therefore, I will assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not desire to press this Amendment, and there is no difference between us, at least in regard to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in moving it.

Mr. Willink: The assurances of the Minister have been clear and entirely in line with what I understood the intention of the Clause to be. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at end, add:
and shall lay before Parliament each quarter a statement showing the average amount paid by him per house and per set of such building materials.
This is one of the controversial Amendments. The Clause as it stands leaves the matter in this way, that differences which arise on the cost of constructing houses are to be paid into the account of the Ministry of Works, to such an extent as to ensure that the receipts of the Fund are no less than they would have been if the houses could have been sold without any loss at all. There have been unjustifiably acid comments on the experimental period with regard to temporary houses during the war—a time of very great difficulty, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister

of Works at the time, would agree. These times are difficult, too, and we have heard of the very large number of schemes that have been investigated and the quite large number of schemes which are being proceeded with for factory made houses. It is right that there should be an investigation of a number of these schemes, but it is most desirable that, through lack of Parliamentary supervision, there should not be excessively long experimentation, and if there are any cases where there has been inefficiency, such as the giving of large orders at great prices without sufficient evidence to justify the giving of such orders, such matters should be brought before this House.
When reference was made to this in the Second Reading Debate, the Minister of Health said that matters of this kind could all be raised on his Vote at a later stage. I do not know whether other right hon. and hon. Members will agree with me, but my impression is that it is quite impossible to make a detailed investigation of the ventures, which may be most unwise in matters of this kind, on the Vote of the Minister. I thought the Minister would be far more ready than he showed himself to be on the Second Reading Debate to give the House, which is intensely interested both in the progress of housing and in the reduction of the cost of houses—which I understand the Members on the Government Front Bench are as anxious to see as we are—information at regular and frequent intervals as to the financial position with regard to these factory-made houses. Why should we not have what is suggested in this Amendment, that is, a statement of the average amount paid, over any period which the Minister feels convenient—we suggest three months—per house or per set of such building materials? The Clause itself is drawn in terms of building materials, consisting of structures ready for erection on the one hand, and of houses on the other. 
The Minister was indignant at this request. I rather think on a previous occasion he called a request of this kind impudent. Whether he will call it impudent today, I have no idea. It is the sort of adjective that occurs to him, but my submission to the Committee is that we should not be content to leave this matter in complete obscurity as it will be, if this Amendment, or something on the same lines, is not included in the Bill.


The metaphors which we used in the earlier discussion this afternoon were varied, but I am bound to say that the metaphor which seemed to me nearest the truth was that the Government are the chief executives of this national concern, and we are, as near as can be, the great body of the responsible trustees and directors of what is going forward. We want to know whether there is success in this factory-made programme, and we are intensely interested in there being no unnecessary loss, or anything wrong, so far as we can judge, with regard to the various types selected and with regard O design and material. I urge upon the Government to undertake a greater responsibility with regard to giving information to the House, than they have so far seemed disposed to do.

Mr. Bevan: I think, if my recollection serves me correctly, the original request was for a statement of accounts. This is an entirely different matter, and I put it on a different footing. In point of fact, the adjective I used on a previous occasion with regard to accounts, would not be applicable to the request now made, and I would not be so infertile as to use the same adjective on different occasions. The fact of the matter is that the Amendment is unnecessary, because hon. Members in any part of the Committee can obtain this information any time they like by putting down a Question on the Order Paper.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The information would be denied.

Mr. Bevan: I do not know what the noble Lord means by that. If an hon. Member puts on the Order Paper a Question asking for information, there is no denial of information, and I do not think he can suggest that there is. The point to which we ought to have regard in this matter is this: everybody knows that it is not possible to make a proper estimate of the advantages of prefabrication until we have had a sufficiently long run. The payments made by the Minister of Health to the Ministry of Works in the first instance for the first lot of houses might easily create a most unsatisfactory state of mind and people would say "There you are, the whole experiment has gone phut." As a matter of fact, I said the other night that it seemed to me that hon.

Members opposite, when they had charge of this matter, were unduly frightened over the cost of a steel house. I wish they had gone on. I wish they had had the courage and had not been deterred, but had pursued their experiments. Had they done so, we would find ourselves in possession of a house which we could erect in great quantities all over the country. Instead of that, there was interference due to the fear that the original expenditure would create such an unfavourable opinion, that it might have nasty political consequences. The result is that today we have not got the houses that we might otherwise have.
5.15 p.m.
So I would suggest to hon. Members, as the House of Commons and the country are deeply interested in trying as far as possible to supplement the traditional housing programme by the production of prefabricated houses, that we ought not to allow our judgment of the advantages of prefabricated houses to be determined by the cost in the initial stages. We shall find ourselves over and over again in that position on this question of prefabrication. I know that the dividing line between ardent experimentation and profligate extravagance may be very narrow in these cases. If we fail, we shall be accused of extravagance, but if we succeed we shall be praised for forethought. I seriously suggest that it is a; least as important for the nation to experiment in unconventional forms of house construction as it was essential to experiment in the building of bombers and submarines during the period of the war. I hope that in our whole approach to this matter we shall be sympathetic to the desire of trying to obtain unconventional methods of house construction.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the value of experiment, but I would ask whether it would not be wise to have progress reports during the currency of these experiments. After all, this House and the country want to know whether the experiments are developing well or not, and they will not be unfair about the initial cost. But they do want to know, and the method of question and answer does not quite meet that desire.

Mr. Bevan: The difficulty is what sort of statement of accounts do the Committee require. The Amendment suggests that


we should say, "We have produced 12,000 prefabricated houses with. 12,000 sets of materials." The expression "sets of materials" is hardly a happy one, but I appreciate the difficulties in phrasing these matters. The set of materials would, in this connotation presumably mean the whole set of the materials required to build a house and I would accept it in that interpretation. We should therefore say, '' Twelve thousand houses have been provided. We have paid a certain price, compared with the traditional building of the same sort, and the amount paid in to the Ministry of Works Fund is about £100 or £200 per house," or something of that sort. That is all hon. Members would get if I accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Might I point out that those are really not the figures, and that is not the information, for which we are asking? We want to know the average amount paid per house and the extent to which the Minister is subsidising each house.

Mr. Bevan: That is what I said. I mentioned the average amount that the Ministry of Health would pay into the Fund in respect of the houses provided for local authorities. That is to say, the houses have cost the country, say any figure you like, £1,200 per house, while the cost of building a traditional house of the same size would be £1,000 to the local authority. Therefore, the excess payment is £200 in each case, and the payment made by the Ministry of Health into the Fund in respect of each of those houses would be £200. That is all that would be obtained if I accepted the Amendment. There would be no difficulty at all in conveying that information in three sentences in answer to a Question. Why on earth it should be necessary to provide a statement about once a quarter I cannot understand. In any case, the point remains that the information cannot start to be given until the houses have actually been provided to the local authorities, because there would not be a house in existence, and no-one could have any information of this kind in the preparatory stages of providing prefabricated houses. None of the costs of experimentation would be in it at all, because you could not charge the whole cost of experimentation to the first delivery of prefabricated houses. Therefore the information given would be value-

less and would convey an entirely wrong idea of the situation.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Personally, I am not asking that the whole of the cost of experimentation should be charged to any one particular batch of houses. The point is, is the experimental work that has been done on these houses bringing good results or not? That can only be found out by-stepping it up in stages, quarterly pictures on a comparative basis, which would give figures of some considerable value.

Mr. Bevan: What the hon. Gentleman desires to obtain is all right, but he is not obtaining it by these ways. It is perfectly natural curiosity for the House to want to find out what is happening to experimentation in prefabrication.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: It is not merely curiosity.

Mr. Bevan: There is no difficulty about the word "curiosity." It is natural that the House should want to know. The fact of the matter is that the Government would be delighted to give the information, but at what stage is it to be given? At the present time certain experiments are going on which may come to nothing at all. Indeed, I said on 15th October that we were not going to form any prophesies about what was happening in regard to factory produced houses because we are in an entirely new field. We do not know what may happen about it, and I am therefore not going to tie myself to any prophesies. Suppose we have produced a factory made house, and suppose after months of experimentation, false starts and re-adaptations, we have at last got a house coming off the production lines, and that house is being supplied to local authorities. Can hon. Members tell me how I am going to cost the first lot of houses?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Perhaps I can answer that question. Under the first part of the Clause, that is what the right hon. Gentleman is undertaking to do. Before he can give any subsidy at all, he has to determine that the cost of constructing permanent prefabricated houses from these materials substantially exceeds the cost of constructing permanent houses of a similar size. He has to make that


calculation before he can give a subsidy at all.

Mr. Bevan: No, the only sum I have to bear in mind in that matter is that of constructing traditional houses of the same size, and I supply these houses at the same price. The amount of the excess would have to be decided by relation to another account entirely. The amount of the excess on the first run may be prohibitive, but on 30,000 houses it might be comparatively small. I wish the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) would not make those gestures of incomprehension. We know that he does not comprehend but there is no reason why he should take us into his confidence. We do not mind telling the House at any time, because the House is entitled to know, what is the payment made by the Minister of Health into the Fund of the Ministry of Works in respect of prefabricated houses supplied to local authorities, and we shall do so, but I warn the House that they will not present the picture of what the cost of prefabrication is going to be to the Government in the long run. Therefore it seems to me that the Amendment is unnecessary.
If the Committee insist that the Amendment is necessary, I will have a look at it, but I do not want to accept these words at all. If the present Amendment is necessary, better words might be found. If we say we shall report to the House once a quarter, we shall have to decide which way we shall report. All the House will get will be a slip of paper stating, "The Ministry of Health has delivered to local authorities X number of houses at Y cost and paid into the Ministry of Works Fund so much." Hon. Members should be content to get this information even more frequently than once a quarter, if they wished, by putting down a Question on the Order Paper in the ordinary way.

Mr. George Hicks: I am sure that we are all concerned with the proposal of hon. Members opposite that we should get the cost of prefabricated houses at the very earliest moment. I think the Minister of Health has adequately replied to the Amendment. He is very ready to give the information. I am certain that the limitation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is putting upon the period of

the report is one which he would find, in practice to be very imperfect, and one which would not give him very much help. The Ministry of Works are going into business; there is no hon. Member on that side of the Committee who would expect, inside I2 months, to be able to give anything like a report of his activities if he went into business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] Hon. Members know very well that they could not, and that they would need at least 12 months to build up an organisation. Although there has been some experience in the present case, obviously hon. Members are asking for a very short report. If they got their report it would be very imperfect, and I am certain that they would be very unhappy about the figures that were given. The Government would not be very happy about it either, because the figures would give an incomplete picture.
The Government are going into pre-fabrication, but we should try to remember that we have had many hundreds of years of house building, and that no country in the world knows more about house building than this country. We shall wish the Government luck in whatever they do about prefabrication, but we know that they are not going very far, and that as soon as the traditional ways and means of house-building are available again, the prefabrication of houses is finished, right away. We are not raising any opposition, whatever the Government do about it. Something may come out of the prefabrication inquiries which may help in certain standards being established here and there, and to that extent they may be useful; but the prefabrication of houses is a fabrication. There is no question about it at all. I do not know whether you would allow me, Mr. Beaumont, to say that I agree with the Minister of Health very strongly in one respect. It is very regrettable that the first efforts made with the Portal house were not allowed to proceed. They were the cheapest, the best, and the most economical. I am sure that was a great pity that we were not able to proceed along those lines.
The value of prefabricated houses is to give shelter, temporary shelter, for those in the community who are not able to get a traditional house. That is the whole value of the prefabricated house, which


has never been thought of in any other way. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite not to press the Amendment, because I am satisfied that three-monthly figures would give a very-imperfect national picture. It would be of no help except as propaganda, but it would be no use in regard to performance. The Minister of Health is on the right lines when he says that he will, at the right time, give the information which is available. It must be part of the picture and not the colour that hon. Members want or that they would like. It would be at the end of the period, when we have had the opportunity to measure this matter, and we shall be very glad to give it to hon. Members.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. G. Hicks) has taken a wider scope than is covered by the Amendment, which deals with a short and simple point. I am a little confused by the answer of the right hon. Gentleman today. If I may say so without impudence, his answer rather lacked the clarity that most of his observations possessed. He began by saying that we can elicit all this information by Question, and that there was no reason for the Amendment to be incorporated in the Bill because it would be so easy to get the information by Question. 
I assume that we should not be told, in answer to a Question, that we should get far more information next Spring than any Conservative Government had ever given. From saying that we should get if in answer to Questions, the Minister then went on to put forward reasons why it was really not in the public interest to give the information. He talked about the position after the first run being unsatisfactory, about the expenses being so high that people might be frightened and deterred. I feel quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence would be able to explain any events of that sort to the satisfaction of this Committee and of the people in the country, but that will not arise if this Amendment is accepted. This Amendment would only come into play when the Minister of Health had approved an arrangement with the Minister of Works for the subsidy on prefabricated permanent houses. As I read the Bill, that transfer of money cannot come into force at all until the cost of each per-

manent prefabricated house has been assessed.
5.30 p.m.
This Amendment, if adopted, could not result in any statement being made to the House of Commons until an arrangement had been approved by the Minister of Health for the payment of the subsidy. We do not oppose the expenditure of money on these prefabricated permanent houses, but we are surely quite entitled to ask that there should be a regular return showing the extent of the subsidy per house which the right hon. Gentleman has approved. Having listened to him, I am rather in doubt whether he is prepared to give that information and let the House know by how much he is subsidising each permanent prefabricated house, or set of building materials for it. If he is prepared to give that statement, I suggest that it-is convenient to have it coming up quarterly and not in answer to Questions which may be put at any time. A quarterly return would be a convenient form which would enable us to judge of the right hon. Gentleman's efficiency, by showing how much the subsidy decreased as time went on. The right hon. Gentleman did say that he was prepared to give the information asked for in this Amendment. If he is not able to accept the words on the Order Paper—perhaps they are not particularly skilfully drawn —I would ask him to give an assurance that the point will be further considered before the Report stage with a view to inserting a provision for a quarterly return of the information, which I understood he was prepared to give. It is all very well to say that we can get the information by Question and answer, but it is surely much more convenient to get it quarterly, when each statement can be compared with the statement issued the quarter before, instead of having to deal with the irregular periods which would be involved in answers to Questions. If the right hon. Gentleman could give that assurance, I am sure we could get on to the next Amendment fairly speedily.

Mr. Bevan: It seems to me that we are making very heavy weather about a very small matter. Some hon. Members have perhaps had a longer experience of administration than I have, but I have had a long experience in the House and I have never known any Amendment accepted which wrote into a Statute a right which


every Member has already got. Every Member has the right to obtain this information any day he likes by Question and answer—every week, every month, every quarter. Then what is the good of writing into the Statute a piece of constitutional redundancy? If the Amendment were accepted, and we had to provide this information once every quarter, that would not enable the Clerks at the Table to refuse a Question the day before. They would still have to accept it and the information would have to be given. I daresay there are Amendments of some substance on which hon. Members opposite wish to occupy the time of the Committee, but surely there can be no greater frivolity than to ask that a Statute should be enlarged, and words used, to write into it a piece of machinery which already exists in the constitutional relationship between the Executive and the House of- Commons. I do ask hon. Members to let us get on to something of real substance and not spend so much time on what, after all, is unimportant. Up to now we have been getting along very harmoniously and have made some progress. It really is inconsistent to allow a Bill to have a Second Reading without any Amendment being moved, and without a Division, and then to occupy the time of the Committee on a matter of this sort, which has no substance in it whatever. Furthermore, may I say that the method of reporting to the House is not defined. In what way are we to report to the House?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: My right hon. Friend surely knows that in Committee we raise points of minor detail. We do not challenge the principles of the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members know very well that they have been moving Amendments which would have wrecked the Bill, and now they are holding the matter up on an Amendment which really has no content. If I may finish the sentence I was engaged on, there is no definition of how we should report to the House. Is a White Paper to be laid before the House? If a White Paper was laid before the House containing the information hon. Members ask for, it would be a White Paper of four lines, saying merely how many houses had been provided and how much had been paid for each house. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? "] Really, I have never heard of such Parliamentary frivolity.

Mr. Nicholson: If the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a point of minor importance, I am exceedingly surprised that he should lose his temper about it. I do not think he will find that his hectic form of lecturing the Opposition will help him in his work. I say that, not because I think it is good for him not to get his own way in everything, but because I am interested in the workings of his mind. He told the Committee that the Amendment was trivial. He said that hon. Members have the right to get the information by Question and answer. At another stage in his speech he said that the information is so scanty that it is not worth giving to the House, but on another occasion he said that there was too much information and it was misleading, I am left in a complete fog as to what is really in his mind. He said that it was quite easy to get the information by Question and answer, and his colleague the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. George Hicks), in an attempt to be helpful, said he could not give the information at all. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep calm and give us one really good reason why this Amendment is unnecessary or harmful.

Mr. Willink: A quarter of an hour ago the right hon. Gentleman said he would consider this matter. Now he feels impatient and says the whole thing is trivial. I appreciate fully that there is a difficulty in defining the stage where experimentation ends and production begins. A house which, in its beginning, is an experimental house, or one of an experimental group becomes a house forming part of a local authority's housing estate. The cost of producing that house may have been very high at first, whereas an exactly similar house supplied to the housing authority six months later may cost much less. I see his difficulties in regard to the simple form of this Amendment. The average amount paid per house, if it covered many types of house, would not, I agree, be very illuminating. It may be that the Minister will not be forthcoming enough to suggest what would be a more appropriate form. I really think that his adverse comment, that a proposal that he should lay something before Parliament is inadequate because it does not specify whether it should be a White Paper or not, is as trivial as anything could be. I have never seen any reference whatever


to a White Paper in a Statute, and I should have thought that he and those who help him with the drafting of his Bills could very easily put into proper form the phrase ''shall lay before Parliament."
I admit, however, that the actual form of this Amendment is not as satisfactory as I should wish, and I hope the Minister will return to his earlier mood and say that he will consider finding some more appropriate form under which to give information to the House on the progress of this very important project than would be afforded by Question and answer. No answer could be sufficiently detailed, and there would have to be a very substantial number of questions to deal with perhaps 30 different types of prefabricated house. [Interruption.] Might there not be 30 different types of prefabricated house in production, and being supplied to local authorities at very widely differing rates of subsidy at the same time? That sort of information could not be adequately dealt with by Question and answer; we do not want the Question hour occupied by ten Members, each putting down three Questions on three different types of prefabricated house. I hope the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to make periodical statements, in whatever form is convenient, with regard to the progress of this programme.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know whether the Minister has thought of the effect on his private office, of his refusal to meet us and give us the information for which we ask.

Mr. Bevan: The Noble Lord must not say that. The Ministry has not refused information.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In this form.

Mr. Bevan: The fact is that the information in this form is wholly inadequate, and very much more information would be obtained by ordinary Question and answer.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The effect of refusing this information in this form, and of constantly refusing to give details of houses, costs and everything else, will engender suspicion throughout the whole Committee and will only result in the right hon. Gentleman's private office being plagued with questions, week by week,

by 50 or 60 hon. Members on this side of the House. The Government have taken away Private Members' time and the effect of that on the Adjournment half hour and on Question Time has been immediate. Likewise, the Minister's refusal to give the kind of information we ask for here will only result in his office being plagued with questions. Suspicion is created in all our minds, and the only way to allay it is to reply in a friendly fashion to the questions put by my right hon. Friend below me. This information will not entail a very great amount of preparation in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, although I do not argue that it will be very simple. As my right hon. Friend says there will be many types of house, and prices will tend to fluctuate according to conditions throughout the country. They may gradually come down every month, or every quarter as this information is required. A different set of prices for a variety of houses will be asked for, and it may well need a paper of some four or five pages instead of lines. But at no point do I think it will involve him in as much trouble as he will have if he creates this suspicion by refusing information, because that forces on us the duty of asking innumerable questions.

Mr. Gallacher: The noble Lord has talked about the suspicion that is in hon. Members' minds. It is nothing to the suspicion that is in the minds of hon. Members on this side about the game that is being played by hon. Members over there. I think it is time they stopped it. The people of this country, I do not care in what constituency, are not concerned with insufficient statements about the financial results of experiments; they are concerned with houses, and everything should be done to encourage the Minister to go ahead with the houses and not to play about with trivial matters of this kind.

5.45 P.m.

Sir William Darling: I am disappointed at the way in which the Minister of Health is treating. this matter. I do not think he takes a sufficiently large view of his own responsibilities and importance. He is setting up —if I may speak in commercial terms to which perhaps he is unaccustomed—the largest house-building and house-supplying business that has ever existed in the


world. He is asking for £100,000,000 worth of building materials. He must know that he cannot set up a business of this character without having the most elaborate statistics.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. I respectfully submit that most of the arguments that have been advanced have been on the subject of a statement of accounts. There is no reference to that in the Amendment before the Committee, which reads:
and shall lay before Parliament each quarter a statement showing the average, amount paid by him per house and per set of such building materials.
There is no question of any such thing as an account of the kind the hon. Gentleman is describing. Most of the arguments from hon. Members opposite have been concerned with a full statement of the whole cost of prefabrication. That is not the Amendment before us.

Sir W. Darling: I was happy to give way for that point of Order to be made. It is for you, Sir Charles, to decide whether or not it is a point of Order. I take it you do not admit it is a point of Order.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the Amendment before the Committee has been dealt with in a businesslike way.

Sir W. Darling: To proceed with my argument, if we are to have State management of industry, it must carry with it all the complications of a very inferior system, the capitalist system, and the Minister of Health and other Ministers who undertake responsibilities of this sort will have to resort to tedious but essential book-keeping, and it is that tedious but essential book-keeping which the Committee is entitled to demand. I do not want to engage in the house-building trade, I am satisfied with the people who have done it in the past, but the right hon.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[5.52 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Boothby, R.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.


Aitken, Hon. M.
Bossom, A. C.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Bower, N.
Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Astor, Hon. M.
Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Bennett, Sir P.
Carson, E.
De la Bère, R.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

Gentleman and the Government compel me, as a taxpayer and a Member of the House, to enter the business. If I am to enter it, I insist—

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. May I respectfully submit that the capitalist system is not under consideration? I submit that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are entirely irrelevant, and that what is before the Committee at the moment is a precise and particular Amendment of the narrowest sort, and that we are not discussing the merits of the capitalist system, whether they exist or not.

The Temporary Chairman: I was under the impression that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) was putting the claim that Parliament should be given the price per house.

Mr. Bevan: No, he was not.

The Temporary Chairman: I was under the impression that his arguments were so directed, or I would have stopped him.

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful to you, Sir Charles, for defending me against such an experienced Parliamentarian as the Minister of Health. It may help his argument to interrupt a comparatively new Member twice, but he will not be able to get away from the logic of facts. If he cannot supply the Committee with intimate details down to the last screw, bolt and nut, he will not provide houses for this country.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is now going beyond the Amendment.

Sir W. Darling: If I am going too far, I am prepared to leave the field to the Minister of Health.

Question put, That those words be there added.

The Committee divided: Ayes, I47; Noes, 297.

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Luoas, Major Sir J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Duthie, W. S.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Eccles, D. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott, Lord W.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Erroll, Col. F. J.
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Snadden, W. M.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'br'ke)
Marsden, Comdr. A.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Glyn, Sir R.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Gridley, Sir A.
Maude, J. C.
Studholme, H. G.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mellor, Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Haughton, Maj. S. G.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)


Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Nicholson, G.
Turton, R. H.


Howard, Hon. A.
Nield, B.
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Nutting, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. O.


Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Osborne, C.
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Keeling, E. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Pickthorn, K.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Lambert, G.
Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
York, C.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Lindsay, Lt.Col. M. (Solihull)
Raikes, H. V.



Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.).
Ramsay, Maj. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Mr. Drewe and Major Mott-Radclyffe.




NOES.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Champion, A. J.
Foot, M. M.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Chater, D.
Forman, J. C.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Clitherow, R.
Freeman, P. (Newport)


Allighan, Garry
Cluse, W. S.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Alpass, J. H.
Cobb, F. A.
Gallacher, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Cocks, F. S.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Coldrick, W.
Gilzean, A.


Attewell, H. C.
Collick, P.
Gooch, E. G.


Austin, H. L.
Collindridge, F.
Goodrich, H. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Collins, V. J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Ayles, W. H.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Cook, T. F.
Grenfell, D. R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Grey, C. F.


Barstow, P. G.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Grierson, E.


Barton, C.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Battley, J. R.
Corvedale, Viscount
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Cove, W. G.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Guy, W. H.


Belcher, J. W.
Cunningham, P.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)


Benson, G.
Daggar, G.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Berry, H.
Daines, P.
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hardy, E. A.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Binns, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Haworth, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hicks, G.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hobson, C. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Holman, P.


Bottomley, A. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Horabin, T. L.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Diamond, J.
House, G.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Dobbie, W.
Hoy, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Dodds, N. N.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Douglas, F. C. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Janner, B.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Dye, S.
John, W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Buchanan, G.
Edelman, M.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Burden, T. W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Keenan, W.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Kenyon, C.


Callaghan, James
Ewart, R.
Key, C. W.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Farthing, W. J.
King, E. M.







Kinley, J.
Paget, R. T.
Strauss, G. R.


Kirby, B. V.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Stross, Dr. B.


Kirkwood, D.
Pargiter, G. A.
Stubbs, A. E.


Lang, G.
Parker, J.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Lavers, S.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Leonard, W.
Pearson, A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Levy, B. W.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Perrins, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lipson, D. L.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Poole, Major C. C. (Lichfield)
Thorneycroft, H.


Logan, D. G.
Popplewell, E.
Thurtle, E.


Longden, F.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Tiffany, S.


Lyne, A. W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Tolley, L.


McAdam, W.
Pritt, D. N.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


McAllister, G.
Proctor, W. T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


McEntee, V. La T.
Pryde, D. J.
Usborne, Henry


Mack, J. D.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Randall, H. E.
Viant, S. P.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Ranger J.
Walkden, E.


McKinlay, A. S.
Rankin, J.
Walker, G. H.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col D. R
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McLeavy, F.
Reevas, J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


MacMillan, M. K.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Watkins, T. E.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rhodes, H.
Watson, W. M.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Richards, R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Weitzman, D.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Robens, A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Mathers, G.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.


Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Medland, H. M.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Messer, F.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Royle, C.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Mikardo, Ian
Sargood, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Monslow, W.
Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Montague, F.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Moody, A. S.
Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.
Williamson, T.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Skinnard, F. W.
Willis, E.


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wilson, J. H.


Murray, J. D.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Nally, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Woodburn, A.


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Woods, G. S.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Solley, L. J.
Yates, V. F.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Sorensen, R. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Stamford, W.
Zilliacus, K.


O'Brien, T.
Steele, T.



Oldfield, W. H.
Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr, Sir J. Boyd
Strachey, J.
Mr. J. Henderson and Mr. Simmons.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Willink: I wish briefly to raise one point and to ask a question of the Minister of Health. I think he will be in a position to give me the Assurance I want. This Clause is intended to deal entirely with house of the normal size and with what are called permanent house. I think it is conceivable that Clause 3 as drafted could be taken to apply to temporary house. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that none of the house that fall within the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act will be dealt with under the provisions of Clause 3.
It might be said that the aluminium house is a house of such a character that the cost of erection substantially exceeds the cost of erecting other houses by traditional methods. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the point has been, or will be, considered, because I cannot help feeling that it is most important that legislation which emerges from these many discussions on housing should be tidy and intelligible, and that no subsequent argument should arise as to whether any particular Clause applies to permanent and temporary houses, or the one or the other. This is particularly important, in my view, because I have heard rumours—and I hope there is no foundation for them—that, because the aluminium house is so expensive, its life


is likely to be prolonged and that there may be some change suggested as to the duration of houses erected under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act.

Mr. Bevan: I am happy to give the assurance that the right hon. and learned Gentleman requires. This Clause does not relate in any sense, to temporary houses. That is dealt with under the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1944, and this Clause has no particular application at all.

Mr. Willink: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill,

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause5—(Increase of sums available for defraying expenses under 7 and 8, Geo. 6, c. 36.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: I think the Committee might rightly ask for an explanation of this Clause. It will be noticed that, under this Clause, we are increasing the amount of money by some £50,000,000. I think there is no one in this Committee who would object to that increase. I think it may be necessary, but I would like some explanation of how the Government are working out these increases. Might I also ask the right hon. Gentleman—who is only too willing to be charming and obliging to me, as always—if he can give the Committee some assurance on whether this amount is sufficient? It would be a pity if he had to come here and ask us to increase the amount in a short time. If I have that assurance, perhaps it might be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have this Clause.

Mr. Bevan: I hasten to reply to the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of the Clause is to provide the additional money necessary to finance the temporary housing programme, because that programme cost very much in excess of what was originally estimated. If the hon. Member wishes the Committee to penetrate into the reason why the temporary houses cost more than was estimated, I should be only too happy to do so, but I thought

it was a subject from which hon. Members opposite would like to part as quickly as possible. If the Committee wish to examine this subject, I would find it quite delectable to do so.

Mr. Williams: I will not weary the Committee further, because the Committee might not think the subject was quite delectable, and the right hon. Gentleman might fall down again, as he has done once or twice before. For that reason, I thank him for his short explanation, which did not, however, cover the point whether he has got enough money for the future. I thank him very sincerely, and I am glad that, this time, he has not fallen down.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Extension of powers of local authorities to give financial assistance towards acquisition, construction, etc., of houses.)

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, at end, add:
(3) In relation to an advance or a guarantee in respect of any house in the administrative county of London this Section shall have effect as if for the words 'twelve hundred pounds' there were substituted the words 'thirteen hundred pounds.
This Clause deals with the amount that may be advanced by local authorities by way of financial assistance, either for the purchase of houses or for the erection of houses, and the object of the new Subsection which I am moving is to increase the limit laid down in the Clause of £1,200 to the sum of £1,300 in the case of London. It will be remembered that the amount which is in question here includes both the value of the house itself and that of the land upon which it stands, and, in view of the very heavy price of land in London, it is clear that a limit which is suitable for the rest of the country is not entirely suitable here. In selecting the figure contained in this Amendment, I have followed the precedent established by my right hon. Friend with regard to the licensing of private builders, in which case the figure for the rest of the country is a ceiling price of £1,200, but, in the case of London, this was increased to £1,300 for the reason which I have mentioned. I therefore seek to bring this provision into line with what is to be done by the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I hope that, perhaps, we can get away from this Amendment quite quickly, because there are a number of Amendments with the same purport on the Order Paper and to which the names of hon. Members opposite are appended. I am entirely sympathetic with the purpose that lies behind this Amendment. I think, however, that the words are inappropriate, and even the association of £1,300 with the upward limit of building in the metropolitan area is not itself a happy association, because it might be that, before very long, private enterprise could build houses at a greater price than that and then the relationship between the two figures would not be made. If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, I will consider the point at a later stage, and will consider putting in £1,300, or a higher figure for the country as a whole.

Sir W. Darling: Including Scotland?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, it includes Scotland. We are very anxious to enable people to acquire their own houses at reasonable rates of interest, and we are happy to extend the application of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to houses of greater value, and, if that is satisfactory to the Committee, I shall be prepared, at a later stage, to introduce an Amendment with a higher figure applying to the country as a whole, including Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: In view of the assurance the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Willink: In view of what has been said by the Minister, I would not oppose the suggestion by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), but, if any question does arise, contrary to what the Minister has said, in regard to some definition of another area in the country, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would give consideration to it. We had in mind the metropolitan area, but, if the Minister is prepared to deal with it over the whole country, the point will not arise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Limitation of rent and purchase price of houses constructed under certain building licences.)

Mr. Manningham-Bullcr: I beg to move, in page 5, line II, after "period," insert:

"of four years beginning with the passing of this Act."
This Amendment raises a point which I raised on the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a point of drafting, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet me with regard to it. Under Clause 7 (I), a limitation is imposed upon the price at which a house may be sold or the rent that may be charged for the letting of that house for a period of four years and not more from the passing of this Bill, and that, I think, is quite clear. But, when we come to Subsection (2), we see these words:
(2) For the purposes of this Section a house shall be deemed to have been let at a rent in excess of the permitted rent if the total rent payable by the tenant in respect of any part of the period for which the house is let exceeds the total rent which would have been payable by him in respect of that part of the said period if the house had been let at the permitted rent.
Under Subsection (2), the period referred to is not the period of [our years from the passing of the Bill, but the period for which the house is let. If we have a house let, after the commencement of the operation of this Bill, for a period of seven years, then, as T read the Bill, although we assume that the intention of the Government was that this part of the Bill would apply to the first four years of that lease, under the wording as it now stands, there is no doubt to my mind that the restriction would apply to the full period of the lease, that is to say, seven years. I appreciate that this is a somewhat technical matter, but I have considered this carefully, and it seems to me that the points need clarification. If the Minister's intention is that a lease for 21 years shall, throughout the whole period of that 21 years, be at a rent not exceeding the permitted rent, then I agree that Subsection (2) is ample for that purpose. But, if it be his intention, as I think it is, merely to put a ceiling on the rent for the first four years, then Subsection (2) is not apt for that purpose, and there should be inserted, after the word "period" in line II the words proposed in the Amendment.
That would make it clear that the restriction was for that period of four years, even though the lease or agreement for a lease might be for a seven, 14 or 21 year period. I do not think there should be any controversy over this Amendment. It is a drafting point, but one of consider-


able substance, because people ought to know where they stand when this Bill becomes law.

6.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, there is one point in reference to this Amendment to which I would draw attention. In relation to this Subsection will he please take into consideration the very heavy sanctions which will apply? I do not think my hon. Friend was right in his interpretation of this Subsection.

Mr. Bevan: I am exceedingly anxious, and I am quite sure that the Members of the Committee will be with me in this, that we should not permit anything to go into this Bill which would enable collusion to take place between a possible tenant and the landlord of houses of this kind which are indeed being built as a special privilege. These houses are in a very special category. They are built by licence, they are limited in price, they are intended to supplement the public building programme, and it would be exceedingly undesirable that there should arise anything like a black market in them, and that the purposes of the law should be thwarted by collusive action between tenant and landlord. If it were possible for a rent to be fixed at the restrictive level for four years, and for the lease to provide that at the end of that period a higher rent may be charged because then the house will be free, as is intended by the Bill, then there would appear at first sight to be nothing to prevent the landlord and the tenant from agreeing to a lease setting a much higher rent for a period at the expiration of the four years. Supposing, however, it was 21 years and that the permitted rent was £I a week. Then supposing the tenant says, "Yes, but at the end of 21 years I will pay you £2 a week for so many years," the effect would be that the landlord would have got away with it. The right way is to limit the lease to four years, and have a new lease at the end of that period. Although I appreciate the intention of the hon. Gentleman, I am desperately afraid that if I use the words he wishes me to use, we would establish a breach which I am sure he is as anxious as I am not to establish.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: We appreciate that collusion must not be

allowed to occur, but there is one point that occurs to me as being covered by this drafting, which I am sure is not meant. Suppose the landlord adopts the plan which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, namely, that he rents the house for four years and then makes arrangements before the four years have run out for the fifth year. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the drafting he will see that the offence lies in offering to let during the four years. It will be difficult to postpone the beginning of the negotiations in order to keep within the letter of the law until the four years have elapsed. I think we might find some way out if it were not "offers for sale" during the four years, but "with regard to" the four years.

Mr. Bevan: I appreciate the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but is it really one of great substance? What hardship is being placed upon the landlord in this Subsection? Hon. Members opposite are being optimistic about the housing scheme in thinking that in four year's time we shall be in such a happy position that landlords will be looking for tenants, rather than tenants for landlords. Let us envisage the situation suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. A four years' lease has been obtained at a restricted rent and the period is coming to an end. The landlord, presumably, will be afraid that he cannot find a tenant to live in his house, and therefore he will want to start negotiations at once. On a strict interpretation, if he started negotiations before the end of the four years, and the tenant offered a higher rent than the permitted one, he might be committing an offence, but he would not do so if he waited a few days until the lease expired. Would he suffer any hardship by waiting for a week or a fort night? I should be happy to believe that in four years' time the housing situation will be so revolutionised that the landlord would be put in a disadvantageous position in relation to the tenant.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: It seems that the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the point. The point is quite definitely that it is the tenant who wants to know what his future will be, and whether he will be able to continue to live in the house. It is not a question of hardship to the landlord, half as much as a case of hardship for the tenant.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: No one on this side of the Committee, I am sure, is in favour of encouraging any sort of collusive arrangement which would defeat the object of this part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is his intention, in order to stop any possible collusion, to make the period of control of rent apply for a longer period than four years, if the letting takes place after the passing of this Bill. He has also indicated that in his view the proper course is for the parties only to agree to a four years' lease, or for a lease for the period expiring at the end of four years from the passage of this Bill, and then entering into fresh negotiations as to the future let. I must concede that I think there is considerable force in that contention, and he did us credit in saying that he did not think we were trying to secure any advantage for those who wished to defeat his object. However, I would ask him—because I think it is an important point—to consider before the Report stage the position of two people, one of whom has occupied premises the lease of which is expiring at the end of the fourth period of a given year. In that case two people, perfectly bona fide, without any intention of defeating the Bill, want to come together to make arrangements for the future. I do not know whether some provision could be made for excluding, under a later Clause, negotiations which take place within, say, three months of the termination of the tenancy. That is a point which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at, and if he will give an indication that he will do so, 1 will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move,
in page 5, line 37, leave out "benefits secured by," and insert "consideration secured in."
This is another drafting Amendment, but one of some difficulty to explain because I find it rather difficult to understand Subsection (5). It is a point to which I referred on the Second Reading. Under Subsection (3) clear provision is made for adding to the nominal sale a benefit which the vendor gets from the purchaser in addition to the recorded price. Under Subsection (4) there is a similar provision with regard to rent, and we do not quarrel with that at all because it is obviously right, if you

are to make this effective, that any secret bargain has to be taken into account to see whether or not there is a sale above the permitted price, or a letting above the permitted rent. Those two Subsections are to me quite clear in their meaning. But when I come to Subsection (5) 1 begin to get confused. It says there:
In determining for the purposes of this Section the consideration for which a house has been sold or let, the court shall have regard to any transaction with which the sale or letting is associated"—
that is clear enough but this is the part which confuses me a little—
and if it appears to the court that the benefits secured by that transaction to the vendor or lessor exceed what they would have been if the house had not been sold or let for the consideration for which it was in fact sold or let, that consideration shall be deemed to be increased by such sum as fairly represents the excess.
Either that adds to Subsections (4) and (3) or it does not. If it does not add to those previous Subsections to which I have referred, Subsection (5) is unnecessary. Presumably it is inserted there because it does add something, but there is apparently no relation between the possible benefits secured by the vendor' or the landlord and what the tenant or purchaser will have to pay under the contract for sale or letting. That is why we have put down on the Order Paper three Amendments which, Sir Charles, with the leave of the Committee, I thought might conveniently be taken together to save time, namely, the one I have just moved, and the next two Amendments on the Paper—in page 5, line 38, leave out "exceed," and insert "exceeds," and in line 38, leave out "they," and insert "it"—so that the Subsection would read:
and if it appears to the court that the consideration secured in that transaction to the vendor or lessor exceeds what it would have been if the house had not been sold or let.
I think the word "consideration" makes the meaning clearer, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept these Amendments.

Mr. Bevan: There is no difference between us as to the intention of the Subsections in this matter. There is no difference of principle. It is merely a question of whether the language in the Bill is more appropriate than the language in the Amendments. Now I am advised that the language in


the Bill is a better vehicle for what we intend than the language suggested by the hon. Gentleman in his Amendments. If his language were more appropriate, I would not hesitate to accept it, but I am informed that a great deal of confusion will be created if the term "consideration" is uniformly substituted for the term "benefit," because it is intended by us that the term "consideration" shall be the price and the term "benefit" applies to the cited considerations. By maintaining that distinction scrupulously throughout, intelligibility is given to the Bill. The term "consideration" is what in fact the person pays for the house; the term "benefit" is what may be obtained by the person who may have provided a sum of money—key money, premiums, or anything of that sort. It is intended to catch the two of them and that is the reason why this language has been used.
6.30 p.m.
It is a very complicated matter, as the hon. Member has said, but as there seems to be no difference at all between us, and we not only want to see that the actual legal price of the house is not exceeded, but no other consideration or benefit is obtained which would affect the intention of the law, the term "consideration" as applied to the one category and that of "benefit" as applied to the other is, I think, sufficient. I will have a look at this again because, as I say, there is no question of principle between us. It is purely a question of drafting and if I find that the purposes of the Bill are better secured by an alteration in the wording I shall be only too ready to have that alteration made. But I am certain that the hon. Member will also appreciate that if it is decided that the language at present used is the better vehicle, then we shall have to maintain it.

Mr. Molson: I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will have a look at it again. I did listen to his explanation because, without it, I found myself unable to understand the Clause at all. I did not quite follow what he said about ''consideration." If he will look at Subsection (3) he will find that it say:
Where a house is sold for a consideration which consists wholly or partly of

something other than the payment of a money price for the house.
In the explanation he gave he said that that was to be a "benefit" and that "consideration" was to apply only to actual payment.

Mr. Bevan: "Consideration" will be the whole thing. "Benefit" would be that part of the consideration which belongs to some form of payment, other than the direct payment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have listened with interest to the explanation of this rather difficult Subsection. Speaking as a lawyer I would say that the term ''consideration" has a fairly precise meaning which the word "benefit" lacks. The word "consideration" would not only have regard to the price, the nominal price of the contract but any ancillary bargain that might be attached to it and that is why as a lawyer I prefer the word "consideration" to the word "benefit" which has not such a precise legal meaning. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will consider this matter again and I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, at end, add:
save and except that where a house is let, the rent for the period of four years from the passing of the Act shall be deemed to be the permitted rent and no more and where the house is sold, the price shall be deemed to be the permitted price and any sums overpaid by the lessee or purchaser shall be repaid to him by the lessor or vendor, and in default of repayment, recoverable at law.
This raises a point of principle on this Clause which is of considerable importance, in my view. Let us see what the Clause does already. It makes it an offence for anyone to let or sell a house at the price above that permitted in the licence. But as the Bill now stands, the tenant who has agreed to rent a house at a price above the permitted price, is not free from the legal obligation to go on paying that rent during the currency of the tenancy. In the same way, the man who has agreed to buy a house at a price above the permitted price, has to stand to his bargain and pay that excessive price notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill. Hon. Members will see that Subsection (7) says:


''The commission of an offence under this Section shall not affect the title to any property or the operation of any contract.
Let me take for example the case where the sale of a house is above the permitted price. The vendor has committed an offence under this Measure; he is brought to the police court, he is convicted and he is fined and he can pay as a fine:
''such amount as will in the opinion of the court secure that he derives no benefit from the offence.
That is to say, the Government are providing machinery whereby the State can take out of the vendor's pocket, the precise sum that the purchaser has paid into it, in excess of the permitted price, plus a fine of £100. The same consideration applies with regard to a lease of any period for more than the permitted rent. The tenant must go on paying. The landlord commits an offence and will have to pay that which he has obtained from the tenant and which he should not have obtained from him, plus whatever fine may be inflicted on him at conviction. That does not seem to me to afford the protection that I want to see given to the tenant, or to the purchaser of a house which is subject to a licensing condition, such as that envisaged in Subsection (I).
I appreciate that there may be, in a few cases, some collusion between a tenant and the landlord, some collusion between a vendor and a purchaser, but what I suggest this Committee should see to is that the intentions behind the licence are adhered to, that the rent is kept at the permitted price notwithstanding the breach of the law by the vendor, and that the price for which a house is sold is limited to the permitted price. It is for that reason that we have put down this Amendment. If it is put in the Statute, its effect will be that the man who, either through ignorance of the law or by mistake, has been induced to enter into a bargain to rent premises, to which the licence attaches a condition of this sort—that that man, acting innocently and entering into that bargain, will be relieved from the burden of paying the excessive rent, and will have his obligation limited to paying the rent to which it is the intention that any occupant of the house should pay. That, it seems to me, would give the protection which this Committee should desire to be given to a lessee. It means that neither the

landlord, nor indeed the Government nor the Crown, would secure any benefit out of a breach of the law. The landlord would not be getting any of the money from the tenant to pay the fine, and the landlord under the earlier provisions of the law may still be dealt with pretty severely. The same considerations apply to the sale and purchase of a house.
In concluding my speech in support of this Amendment I would like to deal in advance with an argument which perhaps might be brought against it, namely, that this would enable a tenant or a purchaser who has entered into a collusive bargain with a vendor or lessor, to secure an advantage, because he would get into occupation of the house, and the tenant would get his rent reduced to the permitted level. I suppose there might be a few cases where that would happen, but I think that it is much more important to put into this Bill a power to reduce the rent to the permitted level, than to take excessive precautions against an occasionally collusive bargain.

Mr. Bevan: I must resist this Amendment, because the language of the Clause has been carefully drawn so as to give rise to the protection that the hon. Member wishes to take away. It must be borne in mind again on this Amendment, that the houses that are being dealt with are in a special category, and that we need to protect the poorer members of the community from the richer members of the community. In most cases, houses of this kind are of the higher rented sort, and, ordinarily, the people who rent them or buy them, will be people of a knowledgeableclass. If they look at Clause 8 the Committee will see that there is a register in which each house appears, and that there is, in fact, no excuse for ignorance as to what the rent or the price of the house should be. There is no justification whatever for any person, whether he be the lessor or the purchaser of a house, to plead ignorance of whether the house belongs to that category or not. I ask the Committee not to make, here, a very wide breach in the provision.
I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member. He wishes to protect the innocent person who has been caught, by an unscrupulous or even by an innocent lawyer, particularly if the house has changed hands. It is well known that


where houses are sold that the genealogy of the house is carefully examined. If the house has been let, the appropriate rent is ascertainable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not always."] It is ascertainable because it is registered. As a matter of fact the conditions under which these houses are being built, and let are the subject of regulation and therefore it seems to me that the language that the hon. Member wishes to use could actually become an escape for the purchaser who has entered into collusion with the landlord, or the seller, to pay a higher price for it than he ought to have done, and this would start a very considerable black market in these houses again. Of course, it is always possible where action is started in a case of this kind, and the action is actually in court, for the house to be re-rented and a new tenancy agreement put into a new lease. The terms of the new lease would be operative at once and that is what is happening in most cases. Where the rent is too high, the landlord would, of course, put himself right, and arrange a new tenancy agreement for a new lease on legal terms. No hardship would arise on that score. For these reasons I ask the Committee not to request the Government to impart language into this Bill at this stage, which takes away from us the power that we desire to use, to see that these houses remain in legitimate hands, for legitimate use, and are not the subject of black market speculation.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There are a great many Acts of Parliament of all kinds under which certain terms are declared to be illegal, but in practically every one of which I have ever heard—I cannot think of an exception—the bargain is no longer enforceable, and in most of them, the person who has paid too much is entitled to recover, or the person who has received too little is entitled to get the balance.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is assuming that the lessee is the victim. He may also be the culprit.

Mr. Reid: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to leave it open to the court, I do not think we should take any exception to that. If he were to say that the court may remodel the agreement, and

leave it to the court to say whether the equities of the situation call for a remodelling of the agreement or not, I think there would be a good deal to be said for that. But here is a law which is going to ensure that, for the sake of punishing a wrongful tenant who has induced a landlord to let to him, the innocent tenant who has unwittingly offered more than the legal price is deprived of all remedy. I can foresee the greatest possible difficulty. You get somebody who has unwittingly offered half as much again as the proper rent, and he is told by some of his friends, the next week, "You have offered far more than you should have done, and your landlord is going to have his money taken away from him in the shape of a fine." The tenant is going to pay the fine, because he is going to pay the money to the landlord, and the landlord is going to pay the money to the Exchequer. I can imagine an innocent tenant having a grievance, and I do not think it will do the administration of this Measure any good, if people with that kind of grievance, are going round the country. I see the point that there may be difficulty about making an absolute rule the other way, but if the right hon. Gentleman feels that, perhaps he would consider the point that the court should deal with the situation as to it may seem just.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Supposing the payment is made by an innocent tenant, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in that case, would that not be a payment by mistake, and would it not, in those circumstances, be recoverable? I can see one or two hon. Members of my own profession shaking their heads, but in my submission that would be the law.

Mr. Reid: If I went into the whole question of error in fact I could go on for a very long time and bore the Committee. I do not think that it is quite as easy as that.

Mr. Bevan: Again, here we are not quarrelling with each other on a question of profound principle. We looked at this very carefully indeed, and hon. Members will recollect, these provisions were made when we were considering what we might do about the selling price of houses. We looked at this then to see whether we could not put up a fence to prevent the


selling of houses becoming the subject of unscrupulous practices. I hope the Committee will not make any breaches in that today. I think that the tenant is being brought forward quite naturally, because he is the best case to plead in connection with the principle; but, nevertheless, there are cases of houses being bought and sold, as well as those which are tenanted, and most of these houses will be bought but not tenanted. The overwhelming majority of those which are being built at the present time are being built by contractors for immediate purchase. If the economic rents are already high, and a tenant comes along and pays a rent in excess of that given, it would be extraordinary if he did not find out something about it. I think, in those circumstances, the Committee ought not to ask me to lower the fence, or to make a small breach in it. I will look at the possibility of the court having power, because I think there is a point there. I cannot say here and now that it can be done, and hon. Members would not expect me to, but there is a point that the court may be able to look at all the surrounding circumstances. I will have it examined quite sincerely, with a view to putting it in the Bill if it proves to be practicable, and does not give rise to any evasions.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: As the right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly said, there is really no issue between us on what we want to achieve in this Amendment. I am sure that he must acquit us of having any intention of making any breach in the wall which he is endeavouring to erect to secure that the permitted rent remains the permitted rent, and the price the permitted price. That is not our intention at all. I welcome his assurance that, without committing himself, he will look into the possibility of giving the court power, where the innocence of a tenant or purchaser is established, to avert the lease or sale contract. I think that would be a good provision, and that it could perhaps be incorporated in Clause 7 (I). I can understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that he could not at this moment commit himself to saying that that will be done, but I feel that it would be a good provision if it could be inserted. I am by no means as confident as the right hon. Gentleman appears to be, that there will not be innocent people on both sides who will make mistakes in regard to these

houses. In those circumstances, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I should like to detain the Committee for a few moments to raise the question of how the Clause is to work in Scotland, with regard to conditions for permitted rent. The Committee will be aware that rent in Scotland includes the owner's rates. I want to find out how this is to be worked. As I understand it, the only just way to do it would be to start by saying "How much ought the owner to get to keep in his pocket after he has paid the rates?" That would be the rent in the English sense. Supposing the licensing authority were looking at the whole situation, they should surely start by saying, "The owner in this case ought to get £60 a year out of which to pay all his outgoings, interest on capital and all the other things"; and then they would have to say, "In order that the owner shall be able to get £60 a year, we must inquire what the owner's rates are, and fix the rent, in the Scottish house, at such a figure as will give £60 a year after the rates have been paid." Supposing the owner's rates were 6s. 8d. in the £—the tenant's of course would be higher—that would mean he would have to get a sum which after the deduction of 6s. 8d. in the £ leaves £60, and that would be £90. Therefore having said that £60 was a fair return to the owner, you say that the rent, in the Scottish sense, shall be £90. That is all right so long as the owner's rates remain stationary, but supposing, within the first two years, the owner's rates go up by £5 —and I am taking figures very close to what is actually happening in Glasgow. The rent remains at £90, but as a result of the rates going up by £5, the local authority is now claiming £35 from the owner, and the owner is left with only £55, whereas, when the licence was arranged, every one was agreed that the just return was £60.
The best way out of this would be for the Government to bring forward the provisions of the Sorn Committee which was concurred in by Members of all parties, that this business of mounting owner's rates should come to an end, and that a


ceiling should be put upon them. That cannot be done today or tomorrow. We have to provide for the situation until it is done. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, therefore, if he would consider making some provision in this Bill so that the permitted rent can be increased by an appropriate sum to make good the increase in the owner's rates during the period of four years. I thought of drafting something myself, but I was not quite sure what the method of working this would be. I therefore thought that it would be better to put the point to the hon. Gentleman, who knows the difficulty with regard to our rating system, and ask him whether he thought the point was a good one, and, if so, whether he would be good enough to do something to put it right before we reach the Report stage of this Bill.

The Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the slightest, but I only heard a short time ago that the point was to be raised. As he knows, the Scottish system of rating is very complicated. The usual English system of rating is that the tenant pays all the rates. Under the Scottish system, the rates work out at about 50 per cent, paid by owner and 50 per cent, by the tenant. The consequence is that we have the odd arrangement constantly happening of having rates upon rates. A distinguished civil servant in Scotland, Sir John Lamb, once' said that there was only one problem that would never be solved in Scotland and that was the problem of rating. The Sorn Committee to which the right hon and learned Gentleman referred reported in favour of a ceiling for owners' rates, but, so far, that has not become law. I can only undertake to look at the situation which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, that within the four years' period there may be an increase of rates. I see many difficulties in conceding his point by taking out one set of property for special treatment which would not apply to any other set of property. Do not forget that the owners of property claim the same justice for their property which is being built now, and if you start to concede it in this case, I shall immediately hear every other owner of property saying why not concede it throughout the country. If this alteration of law

is to be made, I do not think that it should be made on this Bill. It ought to be done by a Rating Bill for Scotland. Without committing myself in any way, I will, however, undertake to examine the matter with my officials and see if anything can be done. If I were dealing with this matter in isolation I have no doubt that I could come to some solution, but the moment I suggested anything about owners' rates in this connection, I can see that difficulties would immediately crop up in other parts of the field.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Reid: I thank the hon. Member for his reply. In the circumstances I could not reasonably expect him to go any further, and I am obliged to him for what he has said.

Mr. Willink: There is another point which has been brought to my attention and which is worth raising, and although I have not been able to give the right hon. Gentleman notice of it I would ask him to consider it. We are dealing here with houses built under a licence, with a control of the sale price for a period of four years. We cannot tell now what will be the course of building prices over the next four years. One looks back to the unhappy period after the last war, which was marked by a lamentable rise in building costs, such as we hope the Government will be able to prevent. Indeed, we hope the period will be marked by a fall in costs. These licences may be granted by some local authorities for a number of houses which may, in fact, not be built for some time, and by the time they do come to be built the costs of building may have risen or fallen. I think these licences are issued by the local authorities under the authority of the Minister of Health. I imagine there is no doubt that the terms of a licence with respect to a house not yet sold or not yet let may be revoked and fresh terms put into it, because the permitted price or the rent fixed when the licence was granted might be quite inappropriate for a house the building of which started 18 months from now.

Mr. Bevan: The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that it will be extremely undesirable to have a large number of these licences suspended in the market and not operated. Therefore, if a licence is not taken up within a period—I forget what it is, but it is a perfectly


reasonable period—it will lapse, and the applicant can come forward for a new licence.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Registration of conditions imposed by building licences, and duties of local authorities.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: I would ask for information upon one point in order to help me in explaining the Bill. I think the Clause is clear; it is for the purpose of registration, but I do want to know precisely who the "proper officer" is who is referred to in line 12 on page 6. We should know that, and also if there is to be a definite register to which the ordinary individual can refer and where it will be kept. Will it be kept by the local authority or by some Government Department? I ask this because without such information I should not be in a position to explain these things in my division, and my constituents are very interested in them. Further, we as Members ought to know where the register is to be, who is the "officer." and how he is appointed. That might save us having to write quite a number of letters to the Government in the future. I feel this would both help the Government and help hon. Members opposite who have had so many letters to write.

Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first question is that it is the local authority. The proper officer would be the clerk of the authority or any person appointed to perform these particular functions.

Mr. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I can see the relief spreading over the faces of the hon. Members behind him. I only hope his explanation was adequate enough—it was not very full—to relieve their worst fears.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 9.—(Interpretation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: I am glad to be able to help again on this Clause. It is fairly clear, I think, but in paragraph Subsection (3, b) there occurs the word "de-

mises." May I ask exactly what that means. It may be a Scottish expression, and some Scottish Law Officer might help us out, but I feel it is a word which can be used in more senses than one. I see the Home Secretary, and perhaps he might be able to tell us it the Minister of Health falls down. We ought to be in a position to explain all these things to our constituents.

Mr. Bevan: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in these matters I share his uncertainty, but I am sure the Courts would not find any difficulty in interpreting this. It is difficult to say in this connection what the word "demises" means, but I think it means "alienate."

Mr. Williams: That does not carry us very much further. Could it have the connotation of "to let" or "to sell''? We are told, and I frankly believe it, that here we are doing something of very great importance and yet we have no real definition of one of the leading words. However, I must resign myself reluctantly to not getting the proper information because, after all, it is rather a tumbledown erection that I see opposite.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 11.—(Short title and extent.)

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, leave out Subsection(2).

This Amendment is moved in order to prepare the way for the proposed new Clause which is on the Paper.

Mr. C. Williams: I think the Clause is very much better with the words left in. I did understand what it meant, and though I cannot now discuss the next Clause I only say that I should very much regret to see the omission of the words of this Subsection:
The provisions of this Act relating to the rent and purchase price of houses shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
I cannot understand why they should not extend to Northern Ireland. When the new Clause that is following is passed, Northern Ireland will come in under exactly the same conditions with respect to the rest of the Bill. It seems remarkable suddenly to change a Clause in this respect with absolutely no explanation.

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that if the hon. Member is courageous enough to enter into conflict with Northern Ireland, I do not share his courage. It is done at the request of the Northern Ireland Parliament. It has become the practice to accede to their requests. We do it in this form, and I would plead with the hon. Member not to throw that very succulent apple of discord across the Floor of the Chamber.

Mr. C. Williams: I would not wish to throw the apple of discord into these proceedings. I would not do anything contrary to the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland because I have worked with them for a long time and I have real sympathy with them. As I have received some little satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman—not very much—I assure him that my intentions are always peaceful and I am never likely to be quarrelsome as are some of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

(1) Sections three, five, six and eight of this Act shall not extend to Northern Ire land; and this Act shall, in its application to Northern Ireland, have effect as if paragraph (c) of Subsection (I) of Section one were omitted there from.

(2) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland, Section seven thereof, and so much of Section nine thereof as relates to the said Section seven, shall be deemed for the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 (which relates to the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws), to be provisions of an Act passed before the appointed day.—[Mr. Bevan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is not necessary for us to discuss the Clause at any length. It contains provisions which the Northern Ireland Parliament can itself amend if it so wishes. That is also common form. Unless a Statute which applies to Northern Ireland expressly states that Northern Ireland is able to amend or repeal it, it cannot do so, and that is the purpose of this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: When we in Northern Ireland

first saw the Bill we were rather surprised and our people set about trying to see whether they could not make some improvement in it. When the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was on this side of the Committee, I often heard him make very severe strictures on Departments for legislating by reference. Now he is tied up in the same way himself. When I first read the Clause I said to myself, ''Whatever does this mean?'' I doubted whether any of the 640 Members of the House of Commons could have explained what it meant. Having gone into the question, I find it simply resolves itself in Northern Ireland being placed on a parity or equality with the rest of the country. We of course have to submit to the same taxes or disabilities, and when we have the opportunity of contributing our quota to the Imperial Parliament or Exchequer we do it in the same way as it is done over here. As we contribute £35,000,000 to the Exchequer every year, and as our voluntary contributions to the war effort amounted to upwards of £120,000,000 we think we are entitled to parity of treatment with that of Great Britain. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has done in this Clause and personally, and on behalf of Ulster Members and the Northern Ireland Government, I would like to convey our grateful thanks to him and to the Department responsible for making this improvement in the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I listened to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) with interest and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health himself will be gratified that his action in putting down an Amendment rather clumsily on a previous Clause did not cause discord and that we now know that the representatives of Northern Ireland have approved of this new Clause. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee in dealing with it, but it is a bad' case of legislation by reference and it is a great pity that more clarity was not shown earlier, when so much time could have been saved, especially if this had been an original Clause of the Bill. I regret that the Government should have thought it so unnecessary to get their original Bill right that they had to come at this time with a new Clause; it makes it difficult


for us, who have a lot of work to do, to look after Amendments and to try to help the Government.

Mr. McKie: As the Member representing the constituency nearest to Northern Ireland I would like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) have said. While my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay was talking and complaining of this cumbrous new Clause being introduced by the Minister at this late hour in the day I thought I heard the Minister say—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that all legislation incorporated into Bills of this House with regard to Northern Ireland has been legislation by reference. Was I right in assuming that that was what the right hon. Gentleman said?

Sir W. Allen: Not necessarily.

Mr. McKie: I must accept the information supplied by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh, with his very long experience and knowledge of Ulster matters, and some 30 years in this House, in preference to what the Minister of Health indicated to the Committee a few moments ago. I protest very strongly indeed against the cumbrous nature of the Clause and this continual legislation by reference, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend reminded the Committee, the present Minister of Health himself continually attacked when he sat in the last Parliament. In the Parliament of 193I, when I first came into this House, I used to sit enthralled listening to the right hon. Gentleman attacking the Government of the day under Ramsay MacDonald. My only reason for rising was because, as I say, I represent the constituency in Great Britain nearest to Ulster and separated only by the narrow straits, from the constituency represented in this House by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Down (Dr. Little), who I am sorry is not here tonight, and by my hon. and gallant Friend the other Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles).

The. Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Would the hon. Member please come back to the Clause?

Mr. McKie: I was unaware that I had ever left it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I was completely unaware that the hon. Member had ever been near it.

Mr. McKie: Had the senior Member for Down been here tonight, with his well known interest in Ulster affairs and his zealous care in protecting the interests of his own constituents, as a Northern Ireland Member he would have wanted particular information from the Minister about this Clause. I very much regret that the Minister was unable to give the information, and just slurred over it by saying that everyone could understand it, when not one single person in the Committee really knows what it is all about.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed.[Bill 44.]C

Orders of the Day — ELECTORS AND JURORS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to electoral registration and to voting at parliamentary and local government elections, to make provision with respect to jurors books, to amend the law relating to returning officers for Scottish constituencies, and to provide for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a)of one-half of the expenses of registration officers in Great Britain in performing their functions under that Act, including all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care and attention in the performance of those functions and any costs incurred by such an officer as party to an appeal;
(b)of one-half of any expenses properly incurred by the proper officer of a local authority in England or Wales in the performance of the functions of registration officers tinder the said Act, including reasonable charges for the proper officer's own trouble, care and attention in the performance of those functions and for the remuneration and expenses of any staff provided by the authority;
(c)of any expenses properly incurred by registration officers in Northern Ireland in connection with their functions under the said Act, the said expenses to be calculated subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section fifteen of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, as if they were registration expenses as denned for the purposes


of that Section, and to include the expense, of any printing required in connection with the performance of those functions; and
(d)of any sums paid by registration officers in Northern Ireland in respect of services performed and expenses incurred by overseers under the said Act."

ELECTORS AND JURORS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Annual register to be used for all Parliamentary elections until registers are in force under 7 and 8 Geo. 5. c. 64.)

Mr. Osbert Peake: I beg to move, in page I, line 12, leave out from "the," to end of line 13, and insert:
fifteenth day of October nineteen hundred and forty-six.
I think it would be convenient for the Committee if the third Amendment on the Order Paper, standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, were considered with it, because the two go together—in page I, line 20, at end, insert:
(3) If at any time prior to the fifteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-six, a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament providing that this Section shall apply to an election at which the time fixed for nomination falls before the fifteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the operation of this Section shall be so extended.
The object of the Amendments is to carry out what I believe to be the intention of the Home Secretary, which is to make Clause I temporary in character. The Bill contains in its Title the words:
To amend the law relating to electoral registration and to voting at parliamentary and local government elections
and the sub-heading in italics before Clause 1 is:

"Temporary provisions as to Electoral Registration."

In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the whole Bill, in his opinion, was to be of a temporary character. He said in his Second Reading speech:
I have to ask the House today to pass another Measure that will make temporary provision for elections that will be held during the coming year, 1946.

Later in his speech he said that in Clause I, that is, the Clause now before the Committee:
We propose that the register now in force shall remain in force until 14th October next and that all Parliamentary elections during the intervening period shall be fought on that register.
Towards the conclusion of his speech he said:
The Government are working in the hope that certainly in the case of the register it will be compiled to come into force on 15th October, 1946, they will be able to rely upon the canvass, publication, claim and objection method which was the practice prior to the difficulties into which the war brought us."—[Official Report, 21st Nov., 1945, Vol. 416, c. 447–455.]

Therefore it is perfectly clear that he intends this Clause to be of a temporary nature. However, when one looks at Clause I, it is unlimited in duration in its terms, and the purpose of the Amendments which I am discussing is to make Clause I apply to the register to be prepared next year, that is, the register which will come into force on 15th October, 1946, coupled with a proviso that if it is impossible after that for the 1947 register to return to the proper method of residential qualification, etc., an affirmative Resolution of both Houses may continue this Clause of the Bill for a further year. I believe that these Amendments are in accordance with the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. All the other Clauses in this Bill have a time limit of some sort brought into them, including the provision in Clause 8 in respect of postal voting. I therefore think these Amendments are, in accordance with the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and the general wishes of the Committee.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I do not complain of the quotations made from my Second Reading speech by the right hon. Gentleman. I appear to have expressed myself with sufficient clarity to make my meaning understandable. This is really a conflict between hopes and fears. If I accepted this first Amendment I should be put in the position that I must produce legislation based on the report of the Committee on Electoral Machinery in time for it to be operated so that a register can be produced on 15th October, 1946.

Mr. Peake: Nineteen forty-seven.

Mr. Ede: No, that is the proviso, is it not?

Mr. Peake: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I hope I made myself clear. If the Amendments are accepted, Clause I will then apply to the register which comes into force on 15th October, 1946, but it would only be after an affirmative resolution of both Houses that Clause I would apply to the Register of 1947.

Mr. Ede: I think that is so. I have appointed the Committee. The names were made known during last weekend. I hope the Committee may be able to get on with its business with reasonable dispatch. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is Chairman of the Committee, will endeavour to secure that that shall be so, but after I have received the Report it will be necessary to prepare legislation, and to submit it to the House. They may cover a very large number of points in the recommendations that they make, and I should desire as far as possible, that the next Bill which is introduced on this matter should be on the basis of the permanent legislation of the country. I do not want to bring in another Measure that would be a temporary one dealing with two or three years or even a shorter space of time. In those circumstances I might possibly be hampered in 1947 if the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman were passed. I hope it will not be so, but I do not want to come back to this House in so short space of time as that, merely to get the prolongation of this Measure, if our fears in regard to the speed at which the giving of effect by legislation to the recommendations of the Committee should be justified.
7.30 p.m.
I hope that the Committee will agree that this Clause can be left in its present form. I have given to the House on Second Reading and to the Committee again this evening my pledge that I will do all I can to expedite legislation, but until I see the form of the Report, it is not possible for me to promise that the legislation will be available by 15th October, 1947, and I do not think, in the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect that we should have to produce an affirmative Resolution if, in fact, we were not in a position to have the register on a permanent basis by that date.

Mr. Peake: I confess I am a little disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Here is a Clause which comes under a heading in italics:

"Temporary Provisions in respect of legislation ",

and of course, as all lawyers know, words in italics in a Bill have no legal validity. But we go on from those words in italics to a Clause which is permanent in form and I am a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman, even though unable to accept the Amendment which would give a definite run of a year plus a further year if Parliament agreed, has not placed any limitation at all on the operation of Clause I of the Bill. I had been prepared to give two years for certain if that was the period which he required. I think it is a little unreasonable when you have a Bill ostensibly of a temporary character that we should not have any time limit in the most important Clause in the Bill. As I say, I am disappointed because, as the matter now stands, it rests entirely on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. I have a great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I am quite sure he will do his best to carry out his assurance. At the same time I say it is unsatisfactory in a Bill expressed in its headings as temporary in character, to have the main operative Clause in a permanent form.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his disappointment so pleasantly and has gone a stage further by saying that he would be content with a two year run and then a year by an affirmative Resolution, that I will try to meet him on that point at a further stage of the Bill.

Mr. Peake: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page I, line 17, at end, insert:
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1945 the annual register which is due to come into force on the fifteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-six, shall instead come into force on the first day of October of that year, and in subsequent years the date for the coming into force of the annual register shall be the first day of October.


The object of the Amendment which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends is to secure a longer interval than exists at present between the date of publication of the register and the municipal elections, which take place on 1st November in each year. This matter was brought to the attention of the House on 17th January, and the then Solicitor-General promised that the matter would be given full consideration by the Government. So far as I know, since that date nothing further has been heard of this matter, but the Committee will appreciate that its urgency has become the greater by reason of the fact that recent changes have assimilated the local government register with the Parliamentary register and thereby greatly increased the total of local government electors.
It will be within the experience of many Members of the Committee that wards, for local government electoral purposes, now include many thousands of electors, and it is a matter of real difficulty from the point of view of political organisation to arrange for the necessary canvass, and the necessary delivery of election addresses, in the very short period which elapses between 15th October and 1st November. The object of this Amendment is to secure that that period is substantially doubled. This question is in no sense a party issue. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee are, I am perfectly certain, equally concerned with hon. Members on this side, to secure that local government elections are treated with the seriousness and importance which they deserve. They are probably as much concerned as we are at the lamentably low percentage of local government electors to go to the poll. If the register could be published earlier, it would be possible for all the parties concerned, by advance organisation, to secure that the issues at the local government election were more fully understood and more widely known among the electors, and I am perfectly certain that hon. Members opposite would be the last people in the world, in view of their own recent endeavours in this respect, to deny the electors such activities. I do appeal to them to consider the merits of this proposal.
I am aware that the difficulty of only getting a register some 15 days before the election is, in some cases, met where the

political agent is on good terms with the local authorities and capable of getting an advance sight of the register, but that kind of procedure is highly undesirable. It makes for inequality, it makes for unfairness, and is not a becoming feature of any system of political organisation. I would therefore commend the idea contained in this Amendment to the Committee as being a small contribution to the more smooth and efficient working of the machinery of local government.

Captain Prescott: I wish to associate myself with the case so ably presented by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter). I fail to see why the date should be 15th October. Surely it would be more convenient if it were 1st October. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the importance of local government elections and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee I am sure agree with the case he put forward. I cannot but think that 15 days is a very short period to allow for elections of this nature. Mention has been made of the low polls at municipal elections. That fact must be present to the minds of all hon. Members in the Committee at the moment, and I suggest that every step should be taken to further interest in municipal matters, and make the most convenient arrangements to further the proper carrying out of municipal elections. I think that a month is a reasonable period. It would help all candidates and would be of advantage to the municipal electors themselves. For these and many other reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I have listened with great attention to the remarks made by the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have both addressed the Committee on this Amendment. I have every sympathy with the point of view which they have expressed. It is true that a former Solicitor-General did promise that the matter would be taken into consideration. This is one of the matters that will come before the Committee of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I hope that in the permanent legislation which will result from that Committee it may be possible to include this Amendment. I am sorry that I cannot accept it tonight, because I could not give a guarantee that next year the physical arrangements for


printing the register would be made in time for the register in that year to be published on 1st October.
I would say that, of course, there is one other inconvenience which was not mentioned by either of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and which is a very real one, in having a register published as late as 15th October. This year the date for nomination for provincial borough councils were 18th October, and for the metropolitan borough Councils 23rd October. I do not care how carefully a register is compiled. It is certain that, owing to human frailty, a few people are sure to be left off. I have contested a very large number of elections in my time, and I have never known an election when on the day before polling day there have not been a certain number of electors who, for some reason or other, were not registered. It creates a great difficulty if a nomination paper has been filled up in good faith, relying on the old register, and then, in the few days which I have mentioned, in between the date of the publication of the register and the date of the deposit of the nomination paper itself, there is a person whose name does not appear on the new register. There are great practical reasons for making this Amendment when we come to the permanent alteration of the law, and I assure the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have so persuasively set forth the reasons for this Amendment today that I will endeavour to include it in the permanent legislation which I shall bring forward.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and, in particular, having regard to the fact that he has put a far more powerful argument for the Amendment than ever I or my hon. Friends were able to put, I am certain that if I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment we can have some confidence that the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman has given will bear better fruit than did those of the Solicitor-General. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Continuance of Section one of 7 & 8 Geo. 6 c. 24.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Peake: This is the Clause which continues the abolition of the two month's residence qualification, and maintains in its place the qualification of residence upon a single day some months previous to the coming into force of the register. When we brought in the original Act of 1943, this two months' residence qualification was embodied in the Act. It was put there as a result of the Report of the Committee on Electoral Machinery. It obviously involves complications from the point of view of the electoral registration officers, coupled, as it was with a system of continuous registration for bringing the register up to date month by month. In the Spring of 1944, round about D-Day, the electoral registration officers came to the Home Office and said this system was proving unworkable. As a result of their representations, the Act of 1944 was passed, providing for residence upon a single day, coupled with a fixed annual register coming into force on 15th October. We think, now that peacetime conditions have returned, although we cannot have the system of continuous registration for bringing the register automatically up to date in accordance with the movements of the population, we might go back without insuperable difficulty to the system of a two months' residence qualification. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Undersecretary of State for Scotland during their speeches on the Second Reading affirmed their belief in a residential period —a definite period for qualifying for being placed upon the register—and with that my hon. Friends and I upon these Trenches are in agreement.
We attach importance to a residential qualification, and I think that view will be generally accepted in all parts of the Committee, but, now the war is over, although we cannot get back to a system of continuous registration as was envisaged by the Act of 1943, we do not see why we should not now return to a period of residence as the basis for being placed upon the electoral register. It does not seem to us to involve any very great difficulties. I think the number of staff involved was calculated in 1944 at something like 400 supervisory officials and some 1,200 clerks, to prepare a register with a residence qualification. In fact, I think probably the number of staff required would be smaller than that, because that number of staff was required


for the operation of a system of continuous registration which is a much more complex matter. I do not think there would be much to be added to the staff requirement as a result of returning to a two months' period for qualification to be entered on the register. In our view, it would certainly be much more satisfactory. Both the Lord President of the Council and other Members of the Government have declared themselves to be against the voting of what are called birds of passage—people who come into a constituency and stay there for a few weeks, or perhaps two or three months. With a single day as a qualification to be placed upon the register one is bound to get on the register quite a number of people who have no real ties with the constituency at all. Of course, in peace time it used to be a three months' period. I think it is quite reasonable, in the conditions prevailing today with a mobile population, that the period should be shorter, but we think there ought to be some residence qualification, and therefore we do not think that the Clause ought to appear in this Bill at the present time.

Mr. Harold Sutcliffe: I want to support my right hon. Friend in his appeal to the Minister that we should now return to a two month's residence qualification. It seems very surprising to me, in view of what happened at this recent election, that the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring in this Bill to perpetuate the same system under which the election was fought in July, 1945. Surely, never since the extension of the franchise to its present proportions have there been anything like so many complaints as there were over this election. I think there is not a Member who was satisfied with the way in which the General Election was conducted; I mean the way in which so many people were left off the register. For one who has been a lifelong voter in a constituency, and has perhaps lived in the same house all the time, to have been left off the register, for some unearthly reason, is the kind of thing that happened. We should not carry on a system such as that for any future election.
The Lord President of the Council, who was then the Home Secretary, made all the arrangements in 1943 for this two months' qualifying period, and they were only withdrawn in 1944, in the very tense

situation of the war at that time, because of the impossibility of acquiring sufficient staff. Surely, we should now be looking ahead—and the Bill does look ahead. There must be sufficient staff available by the time they will be wanted. About 1,200people will be required altogether, to compile the Register based on the two-months' qualifying period. Surely, it is a poor advertisement of the Government's demobilisation plans that the Government should be so pessimistic about the situation so far ahead that they do not think there will be 1,200 people ready to do this work. That is a surprising confession on the part of the Government. We should delete the Clause, which embodies a purely wartime qualification. Even the two months' qualification is a wartime system, and as soon as possible I hope we shall get back to the prewar system. I urge that in any election which may take place in the fairly near future we should not go through the same experience as we had this year, for causes outside anyone's control. Surety, those same causes do not operate in peacetime, and will not operate by the time future elections take place. Surely, the time has come when we should return to the two-months' qualifying period. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the deletion of the Clause.

Major Digby: I support the view that we should return to the form of the 1940 Act. I dislike dropping the qualifying period, and particularly so when registration is based on the registration cards and when the person concerned is registered purely as to where he had his food on a particular day. I want to raise another matter, and perhaps the Minister can give us an answer when he replies. It relates to travellers' cards. I believe a lot of people have travellers' cards. I should like to know whether they are all registered where they happened to be feeding on 30th June, the qualifying day, or whether they are allowed to opt. It is an important point. We are elected here not to represent a body of people but to represent a constituency and the people living in it. That constituency looks to us to represent its views. It therefore follows that it is of great importance that we should be good representatives for that area, and it is of great importance that electors should be able to judge in that matter. But how


can persons who happen to be eating their food on the 30th June in a particular area, but may otherwise have very little connection with the place, judge whether any one of the candidates is the person to represent that area or not? It is obvious that he cannot do so.
Apart from that difficulty, there is the fact that some people may remove during the qualifying period of two months, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is absolutely necessary that they should be properly catered for. It does not seem to present any difficulty, in view of the new provisions for personal voting, and it would be possible to take the last place where they spent two months, and to relate their vote to that place so that there would be no question of their losing the vote. There may be a lot of grievances in the Committee on this matter of the residence qualification. The Lord President of the Council, when he was speaking on the 1944 Bill, used extremely strong words on the matter and he justified even the temporary departure from the qualifying date by the fact that it was necessary to make provision for by-elections. It had nothing to do with the General Election. It was only on that account, and as a temporary Measure that the Government were willing to extend this qualifying period.
The General Election has come and gone and we are now being asked to go on with this system, which has not been satisfactory. I regard the matter with apprehension. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman tells us that there arc manpower difficulties, but really I cannot see that it would be impossible to find, even here, the very small number of people required. It is not a question of finding them today or tomorrow, but only in the period between next June and next October, which is long way away. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider seriously whether it is not possible to find the very small number of people who will be required at that time, getting on for one year ahead. I urge the Committee to reject the Clause, if the right hon. Gentleman will not change his mind. I feel that a very important principle is involved.

Mr. Ede: The date 30th June is very important, but I do not know whether that is a reason why anyone should fast on it, and why the mere fact that some-

one has dinner in some place or other on 30th June disqualifies the person from voting in an election. The logical application of the hon. and gallant Member's remarks might be that everyone should dine or lunch out of his own constituency on 30th June so that he should not acquire the disability which the hon. and gallant Member thinks he would. With regard to travellers' cards a person is registered in accordance with the permanent address shown on his identity card. The person who has a traveller's card and is staying in some seaside resort, say, away from home on the qualifying day, is not registered in respect of the place in which he gets his food on the travellers' card, but in respect of the address which is on his identity card.

Major Digby: I thought that it was on the travellers' card that we are allowed to get our food, without being registered in the particular shops.

Mr. Ede: Yes, but that has nothing to do with the question of registration for electoral purposes. That depends upon the address that is shown on the identity card, and the national registration officer passes on the information as to the number of people he has registered to the electoral registration officer. Apart from that, I stand by what I have previously said and by what my right hon. Friend the Lord President said, about the desirability of getting back to a residential period, and I had hoped to be able to include such a provision in the Bill. But I consulted with the registration officers throughout the country, and I was assured by them that, at any rate so far as the next register is concerned, it would be quite impossible for them to operate the provisions for a continuous register. I cannot help thinking that the number of additional staff said to be required for this has been very considerably minimised by the right hon. Gentleman. I know it was based on some information given previously by the county registration officers—

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It was given by the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Ede: It was given by the Lord President of the Council, on information supplied to him by the county registration officers, and I gather that at that time the borough registration officers—I am


speaking entirely from memory—felt that they could do the job. I am bound to say that neither of those groups of registration officers now feel that they would be able to do the job, and it is only because of the purely physical difficulty, of the fear of the registration officers that if we put the duty on them they would not be able to fulfil it, that I have not been able to include provision for continuous registration in the Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: One does not wish to press this matter unduly; one appreciates the difficulties, but it is a curious change from the time before the 1943 Act, when it was said, although we were at war, that the system could be worked. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if it cannot be worked during the next year, does the retention of Clause 2 in the Bill in its present form in any way obstruct the operation of a qualifying period for a subsequent period?

Mr. Ede: I think the hon. Gentleman has given the correct interpretation of the Bill, but I will have that particular point examined.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary register.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out "as soon as may be," and insert "immediately."
It was with some astonishment that I found, on reading this Bill, that it contained the mystic, magic and completely inexplicable and undefinable words, "as soon as may be." I was particularly astonished when I recollected the trouble that the Lord President of the Council had had with those words when he was Home Secretary in connection with fireguard regulations. Yet we find that the Home Office, not learning from experience I regret to say, brings forward to Parliament a Measure containing those words. I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite attaches some importance to the use of the English language, and I should indeed be obliged to him if he could explain to the Committee what those word's mean, if anything. The same words occurred in another Bill, the Statutory Instruments

Bill, more than once, and when the Solicitor-General was asked to explain them he moved or accepted—I have forgotten which—an Amendment to insert the word "immediately," which not only has the advantage of being one word instead of five, but also of having some meaning. I am therefore hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman will attempt the task of finding out what the words "as soon as may be" mean, but I hope none the less, whether he attempts that task or not, that he will accept the Amendment and insert the word "immediately." That was the word which the Solicitor-General thought was the right replacement for this curious phrase.

Mr. Ede: Of course the meaning of this phrase depends, in its legislative sense, upon the Government that is in office, and in this particular connection I regard "as soon as may be" and "immediately" as synonymous. I, therefore, propose to accept the Amendment, which does not alter the meaning of the Bill but which does insert a word of Latin origin in place of five words of English origin. I see them disappear from the Bill with regret, for I prefer English even to English derived from Latin, but I hope that there will be no ill-feeling between us on that score. The hon. Member may rest assured that by inserting the word "immediately" the purposes of the Bill will be brought into effect at exactly the same second of time as they would be if the words "as soon as may be" had remained.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to thank the right 'hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met this Amendment, while regretting that he has not faced up to the task of defining with precision what the words "as soon as may be" mean.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, leave out "December" and insert "January."
I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take, along with this Amendment, the next four Amendments on page 316 of the Order Paper, the last Amendment on page 316, and the fourth and fifth Amendments on page 317 The points raised in all these Amendments are really similar, and I think it would save the time of the


Committee if we took them together. The one upon which the others are to some extent consequential proposes in line 36, to insert:
(3) Arrangements shall be made—

(a)as respects members of the Forces, by the Admiralty, Army Council or Air Council, as the case may be;
(b) as respects seamen, by the Minister of War Transport;
for securing that every person appearing to be qualified to make a Service declaration shall have an opportunity of making one and for so transmitting such declaration to the registration officer in any manner authorised by electoral registration regulations that it is received by the registration officer before the end of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six; and where a declaration so received by the registration officer is made by a person already entered in the Service register for that constituency, the registration officer shall make no entry in the supplementary register in respect of that person.
The first point that one appreciates on looking at Clause 3, which deals with the supplementary register, is the fact that there is no provision in that Clause for an automatic registration of Service voters, a provision that was recommended by the Speaker's Conference and a provision which, in view of the figures published in the White Paper, I should have thought it was desirable to implement. The second point is that Section 10 of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943, provided that
Arrangements shall be made, as respects members of the Forces, by the Admiralty, the Army Council or Air Council, as the case may be; as respects seamen, by the Minister of War Transport; for securing that (so far as circumstances permit) every person appearing to be qualified to make a service declaration shall have an effective opportunity of exercising from time to time as occasion may require the rights conferred upon him by this Part of the Act in relation to the making and cancellation of Service declarations.
I am not quite clear whether Section 10 of the 1943 Act has any application with regard to entry in the supplementary register under the Bill now being considered, because that Section specifically referred to the rights conferred upon a persons by that part of the Act—which means the 1943 Act—but in 1943 Parliament was of opinion that it was necessary and desirable to put in a Statute a provision to the effect which I have just stated, casting the responsibility upon the Army Council, the Admiralty and the Air Council, and in the case of seamen, upon the Minister of War Transport. As far as

I can see this Bill omits any reference to that Section, and that is why the Amendment was put upon the Order Paper. If Section 10 of the 1943 Act applies to the supplementary register, of course I concede that the Amendment is in part unnecessary. But Section 10 of the 1943 Act applies only where it states that arrangements shall be made for securing that
so far as circumstances permit.
8.15 p.m.
That was done in wartime and it was as far as one could go in wartime, but I submit that now we should put a slightly greater obligation upon the Army Council, the Air Ministry, the Admiralty and the Ministry of War Transport in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will, therefore, see that we have made a slight alteration, in the wording of our Amendment, from that which was contained in Section 10 of the 1943 Act. When one looks at the figures of Service votes at the last Election and the numbers of people who were in the Forces and who wanted the right to vote, but whose declarations were rejected on one ground or another, it becomes clear that if we are to prepare a supplementary register for Service voters that will be more than a cause of dissatisfaction, we should try to produce machinery which will render their inclusion in the Register as automatic as possible. Therefore we seek to provide that every Serviceman shall be given an opportunity of making a Service declaration. We omit the words
so far as circumstances permit,
because the situation in regard to getting these declarations to men in Burma and elsewhere has, of course, changed. We seek to put a duty upon the authorities who see that every Serviceman makes a declaration. What happens then? The declaration comes back to the registration officer of the area concerned, who will have to make a check to see whether that Serviceman is already entered on the Service Register. If he is already entered, we provide in our Amendment that he shall not be entered on the Service Register. If that machinery were used, it seems to me we could get a Register in force at the end of February of next year which would include all those who are now serving the country in the Forces and who were omitted from the Register on which the General Election took place.
This brings me to the other Amendments which are being taken together with this Amendment. Obviously, it would be too short a time for the fulfilment of that obligation by the Army Council, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry if the time were limited to 31st December. It could not be done in that time. What we seek to do, while not seeking to delay the production of the supplementary register, is to give a further month for the making of these declarations. That is why, in all material places, we have altered the date from 31st December to the last day of January, 1946. I think the point raised in these Amendments is one of considerable importance. I do not think the Committee should be satisfied with any Bill which does not provide for the automatic registration of a Service voter and which leaves it still to the Service man to contract in, without ensuring an opportunity that he will be able to contract in, to exercise his right of voting in any election that may take place —and, of course, an election may take place far sooner than hon. Members opposite expect.

Major Digby: It seems to me to be important that this date should be extended from 31st December to the end of January. If we are to have a supplementary register, it seems to me to be most important that it should be made a real success, and that we should get in some of these Service and ex-Service people who were left out of the last register. Those of us who have served in the Army during this war have some idea of the time it takes for any instructions from the War Office to reach the unit, and, if the time allowed is only until the end of December, I do not see how those instructions can be fully effective. For that reason, I support the Amendment.

Mr. E. P. Smith: A few minutes ago the Home Secretary was so obliging to us that he changed the phrase "as soon as may be" for the word "immediately," and he is now being asked to change December, 1945, which might be regarded as "immediately," to January, 1946, which might be regarded as "as soon as may be," in order to ensure that the members of the Services shall have an effective opportunity of registering their votes. If I may say so with great respect, the right hon. Gentle-

man took the first somersault very gracefully, and I hope he will take the second equally successfully.

Mr. Ede: It is, of course, always difficult to make a concession in Committee, because that is, at once, made the reason for a second-concession, I regret that I am not able to meet the wishes of right hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite on this particular Amendment. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham- Buller), I am informed that Section 20 of the Parliamentary Electors (Wartime Registration) Act, 1943is still in operation, and that all the obligations that were placed on various people by that Section remain in force. Therefore, in so far as the main Amendment among those which we are discussing —

Mr. Manningham-Buller: And will "apply to the supplementary register?

Mr. Ede: Oh, yes, and will apply to the supplementary register. So far as the main Amendment which we are discussing is concerned, that is, repetition of Section I0, it would appear to be unnecessary. When we come to the question of the date, I would point out that, immediately after the General Election, a notice was sent to all commands and similar people who are responsible for transmitting information to the troops, drawing attention to the failures that had occurred with regard to the registration of certain people and informing them that they could now make a fresh declaration. That has been repeated during recent weeks, so that we have made every effort to bring to the attention of the troops the power they have of getting on to the supplementary register, and, of course, that is a concession that is peculiar to the troops and which, does not apply to the civilian population.
I think there will be some later Amendments dealing with one or two of the smaller details with regard to that, and I do not think I need anticipate what I may be asked to say later on, that I think it will be generally accepted that people in the Forces and in the Mercantile Marine are, in fact, in a better position with regard to the supplementary register than are the civilian population who cannot get on it—people who have been civilians all through. I am bound to say that, as an ex-Serviceman myself, I would


very much like to have made a point of placing a duty on the Army Council, Admiralty and Air Council of seeing that all people will, in fact, be placed on the register, but, when I tried to do that, I found there were serious practical difficulties in the way. It is not easy for the Army Council to find out in which constituency a man actually resides. There arc plenty of people who give an address which they believe to be quite genuine—a postal address—but which may, quite seriously mislead the Army Council when they try to get that person placed on the register. I think the arrangements that are now made, until we can get down to a permanent basis for the register—and that is one of the things on which my hon. Friend's Committee will have to report—until we get permanent machinery and a far better staff to deal with these matters, we shall be compelled to leave the responsibility where it is at the moment.
I hope that, when we get the permanent legislation, we shall be able to ensure that the man in the Forces will be registered automatically. I hope that, by that time, there will be far less movement of troops than at the moment takes place, and that it will be found within the competence of these three Service Departments to undertake the duty. I have been in correspondence with the Service Departments in an endeavour to get them to undertake this duty, because I am exceedingly anxious that every Serviceman shall, in fact, be on the register, but, at the moment, the Service Departments feel that it would not be possible for them to discharge the duty that this Amendment would place on them if the Committee were to enact it. I must, therefore, ask the Committee to await the permanent legislation, when I hope we may be able to have something which will be more satisfactory to me than the present arrangements.
I could reject what the hon. Gentleman called the main Amendment and still, of course, accept the other Amendments for making this date 31st January instead of December. That would leave only 28 days within which the supplementary register would have to be compiled and passed, and there I was confronted again with the view of the registration officers that it would be impossible for them in that time to comply with the requirements under the Statute. Therefore, I regret

that it is not possible for me to accept the two main Amendments to which the hon. Member referred.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: For an Amendment which has elicited such a valuable and important statement from the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure no apology is necessary. I am sorry, and I am sure he is, that he has not found it possible to ensure in this Measure automatic registration for the Servicemen, but one welcomes the hope that he has expressed that it will become possible in the near future. In view of what he has said about the obligations under Section I0 of the I943 Act, which was somewhat obscure, and the compilation of the supplementary register, and in view of his other observations, I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, leave out "was" and insert "will have reached."
It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider this Amendment and the other Amendments on the Paper which relate to the same point. I have a certain amount of optimism that the right hon. Gentleman will accept them, because, in lines 30 to 36, it is provided that, where a man makes a Service declaration between the end of June and the end of December, and where at the time he makes the Service declaration, he is 21 years or over, then the effect of the Bill is to treat him as 21 years of age and put him on the register. That is all very well, but may I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? Suppose someone makes a declaration on 30th November and he is not 21 at that time, but he will be 21 before the end of December? As the Bill now stands, that individual will not be on the register because he will not be 21at the time he made his Service declaration, although he will be making his Service declaration within the time limit for making it under this Clause.
8.30 p.m.
What we seek to provide is that it does not matter whether he makes his Service declaration before he is 21 or waits until he is exactly 21 before making it, so long


as it appears from that declaration that he will have reached 21 years or over by the end of the period—I ought not to have included the second Amendment, Major Milner; I ought to have mentioned only the one I am moving and the last one to line 33, because the second one was an alternative in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the last Amendment. If he makes his declaration between the end of June and the end of December, it will not matter if he is 21 or over at the time he makes the declaration; he will get on the register if he has reached 21 or over by the end of December, 1945. I hope I have made the object of this Amendment quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman in those few words, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, which is merely designed to ensure that those, for instance, who may be far overseas, say in Burma, who know that the last date on which they can make a Service declaration and get it back here is a date which will come before they are 21 although they will have reached 21 by the 31st December, who would now be struck off or not be on the supplementary register will in fact get upon it. I am sure it is the intention of both sides of this Committee that that should happen, and that in my view will be achieved if this Amendment is accepted.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The hon. Gentleman is trying to take us really too far with this Amendment. The purpose of the supplementary register was to bring in those people who were inadvertently left out of the previous register. We hope they are going to come in now, but the hon. Gentleman asks us to give cover to the Serviceman who has become 21 between 30th June and 31st December. We confess straight away that some Servicemen who have become 21 between 30th June and 31st December will not come into this supplementary register, but I think it will be agreed on all sides that it would not be right to give a specific cover to the Serviceman who becomes 21 between June and December.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Why not?

Mr. Fraser: There is no suggestion that a similar advantage should be given to the civilians. The Serviceman does not

look for an advantage over civilians; he only asks to be given the same right as a civilian in this regard. But the hon. Gentleman has asked that the Serviceman should be given a very obvious and specific advantage—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am merely trying to put in order a facility which is given in this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to it, he will see that in this Bill the facilities are given to some of those who have become 21 in the Services between 30th June and the 31st December. All that I am trying to ensure by this Amendment is that there should not be a series of anomalies in the selection of those who can get in the register just depending upon the date when they make their declaration.

Mr. Fraser: I have just said that some Servicemen who attain 21 between June and December will come on under the provisions in this Bill, providing they are 21 at the date on which they make their application, but if they are not 21 at the date at which they make application, they will not come on, and we do not think that it would be right to make specific provision for their coming on if they were able to say on their declaration that they will attain the age of 21 before the 31st December. As I said, there is no suggestion that a similar advantage should be given to the civilian voter. Furthermore, even were the Amendment accepted, there would be no provision for the man who comes out of the Services into "civvy street," to use a colloquialism, before he reaches his twenty-first birthday, even though that should be between the date of his release and 31st December. There is no cover for that man and it would not be the intention of the Committee to give specific cover to the man who continues to serve without giving it to the man who may have to be discharged from the Services because he has met with some serious incapacity. I think it must be appreciated that there will be anomalies in so far as some men who attain their 21st birthday between June and December will come on, and I think that this Committee would not press for such a specific cover to be given to the Service voter.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am indeed surprised at the line which the hon. Gentleman has taken. If he had said that there


was some grave administrative difficulty—we know that this is not a very satisfactory Bill at all, that it is not what we would like it to be for many practical reasons—about accepting this Amendment, and that we were jeopardising the scheme in some way if we tried to insist on it, he would be making a case, but I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not right—because that was the word he used—that certain people who have attained the age of 21—

Mr. Fraser: I said "to make substantial cover."

Mr. Reid: I understood the hon. Gentleman to take a matter of principle—that it was not "right" to give to these people the right to vote for some reason or other. That I cannot understand. I should have thought the right line of approach here was this: We will give the vote to every man we can bring within the scheme without going into too great administrative complexities. Everybody ought, we agree, in theory, to have a vote, but we agree that in practice there are difficulties about bringing certain people in. Very well. As far as you establish the practical difficulty, you have to leave them out, regretfully but inevitably, but why we should leave out people when there is no administrative difficulty about bringing them in, I do not understand. I agree there have to be anomalies whatever happens, but surely, recognising that position, we ought to stretch a point as far as ever we can to bring in the maximum possible number. That is all this Amendment is asking, and I. really cannot understand why, on any other ground than administrative difficulty, the hon. Gentleman should be so sticky about it. I would ask him to think about it again.

Major Cecil Poole: I would appeal to the Minister to have a look at this Amendment again and see if, between now and a later stage of the Bill, he cannot do something to meet what is required. What is asked for is something which is very elementary and perfectly simple, and it will remove what may be very serious anomalies. For instance, if a soldier stationed in this country reaches the age of 21on 24th or 25th December, he can fill up his 2626 and be on the register, but the poor devil who is out in Burma, who may be 21

in August, has to fill his up perhaps in June or July and does not get on the register. If I remember my Army Form B.2626 rightly—and I have not seen one since we had the awful hullabaloo to complete it in time for the last Election, and which was responsible for so many men being deprived of their vote—I do not think there is any space on the 2626 to declare his age—

Mr. Fraser: Mr. Fraser: There is.

Mr. Ede: You were well over the age.

Major Poole: Yes, I know. Then my memory is at fault. Be that as it may, I do not think it justifies us in depriving a man serving overseas of a vote and giving it to the man who is fortunate enough to have a home posting because he can get his 2626 into his returning officer and the other man cannot. I hope, too, that the Minister will endeavour to form some assessment of the extent to which facilities have been made available between June and December for men to get on to the supplementary register because my information is that there are very few No. 2626 forms completed. Therefore, the supplementary register bids fair to be as big a farce as the Service register was at the General Election. We can make it less of a farce if we endeavour to include every man. This register is operative from February to October, 1946. This being so, a man may be 22 years of age and still not have a vote. We cannot justify such a situation. We arc giving nothing away. What we are saying is that a man, if he be 21 by 31st December this year, shall have a vote. It should not be beyond the wit of man, or the Minister, to devise means whereby that can be done.

Mr. Ede: I have listened to the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lichfield (Major Cecil Poole) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), and I think it is a point on which the Committee would like the Government to meet them. I am prepared to put words into the Bill on the Report stage that will do that, but I am advised that the exact wording now proposed would make very awkward reading in the Clause. I hope, therefore, that on my giving this assurance the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will be willing to withdraw it on the


understanding that I will find words between now and Friday, when we have the Report stage, that will enable the desire of the Committee to be carried out.
I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lichfield that among the declarations that Service men make is one in the following form:
I hereby declare that I … am a British subject and am (am not) 21 years of age or over. (If under 2: years of age) was born on… … … … … … …
Therefore, a man who signs his form today, and whose birthday is on Christmas Day, could make a perfectly truthful declaration that he is not 21 years or over but was born on the 25th December, 1924, and would, therefore, be entitled, when the supplementary register is made, to be placed on it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we on this side of the House accept his assurance, and that my purpose in moving this Amendment has been met. In view of the assurance given and the way in which he has met the point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, leave out paragraph (a), and insert:
(a) that between the end of June nineteen hundred and forty-five, and the end of December in that year, the said person ceases to reside in the constituency for which he or she is registered in a civilian residence register as a parliamentary elector or that said person ceased to be a member of the Forces or a seaman between the end of June, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and the end of December in that year.
The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. On the Second Reading of this Bill I put forward this same suggestion, but I would say, with respect, that it was given very little consideration by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who dismissed it as impracticable. It was probably my own fault for not making the matter clear to him. I put forward two suggestions at the time, one an ideal which was discarded as impracticable in the circumstances, and the second that which is now on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland fastened on the ideal and discarded it. In this Bill there are two very great improvements—the provision of

supplementary registers upon which those ceasing to be members of the Services or of the Mercantile Marine can be placed, as can, similarly, those serving in the Forces or war workers abroad. The purpose of this Amendment is to include on the supplementary register civilians who have moved from one area in England, Scotland or Wales to another. This Committee should not accept the excuse from the Government that this is administratively impossible, because the vote is a very precious thing and it is our duty as Members of this House to ensure that as many people as possible who are eligible to vote are included upon the register. This is one method of improving the situation. I am glad to see the Government have accepted the idea and put people who move from one area to another on the absent voters' list. That is an improvement, but it does not go far enough. Therefore, I put forward this suggestion which will enable civilians to be placed on exactly the same footing as members of the Forces and seamen.
8.45 p.m.
Within the last hour the Minister has said that civilians are worse off under this scheme than those in the Forces. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that they shall not be worse off, and that they get the same benefits as the serving men and women and those who have been demobilised. In other words, they are included not upon the absent voters list with the questionable advantage of being able to vote in the constituency which they have left, but are included in the supplementary register of the constituency to which they have moved. There has been a tremendous amount of movement in this country since 30th June of this year, and it will continue. The only provision made, which I admit is better than hitherto, is to give those people the right to go on the absent voters' list. I suggest that the right answer is to accept, not necessarily the actual wording of this Amendment, but its intention. We have not the advantage of the Parliamentary draftsman. This Amendment endeavours to see that people who have moved during the war—many hundreds of thousands of them—are not debarred from voting in the constituencies in which they reside. This Committee cannot accept the excuse of administrative difficulties. To get on the absent voters' list a person must apply; what we are


suggesting is that instead of applying to get on that list in the constituency in which a person lives, he should be able to get on the supplementary register in the constituency to which he has moved. This is not a matter of party politics; it is merely an honest and sincere attempt to see that more people are given the opportunity to use their votes in the constituencies in which they have a living and a vital interest at the moment. We could, without much difficulty, incorporate the intention of this Amendment in the Bill and see to it that a considerable number of people who would otherwise only have the privilege of absent voting by post, are given a real live vote in the constituency in which they are actually residing. Therefore, I would press the Minister to give serious and sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): The hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite right when he said that if his Amendment were accepted a large number of civilians would come upon the supplementary register. That would enormously widen the intention of that register which is primarily intended to cover persons not previously registered. The men who have been demobilised from the Services between June and December very rightly will come onto the supplementary register but that would hardly be appropriate for civilians who had merely left one constituency to go to another.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Why not?

Mr. Oliver: Because facilities have been provided in cases of that kind for the civilian to record his vote. The matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred with regard to postal voting was to overcome the difficulty where the civilian, moving from one part of the country to another, desired to exercise his vote, and provision in the Statute is made to enable him to do that.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: I made that specific point in my speech, that postal voting arrangements are not nearly as good as they were suggested to be.

Mr. Oliver: That is a matter of opinion, because to come on to the supplementary register the person who was registered in the constituency would require, I think, to have removed before January, 1946,

but that does not apply to postal voting. Therefore, he has a much greater extended power by the provisions of the Statute than he has under the proposals of this Amendment. One other difficulty in this Amendment is that there is no provision in it for removing the names from the register in the constituency in which they were first registered. Therefore, it is important if a large number of civilians should be placed on the supplementary register that there should be corresponding provision for the removal of names, which would be permitted to remain there unless machinery is provided for their removal.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: That is in the consequential Amendment.

Mr. Oliver: For those reasons it would not be possible for the Government to fall in with the suggestion by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: I wonder if it is clear to the hon. Gentleman that there is a very grave disadvantage in not making provision as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers) for this reason: Whether we like it or not, both the intentions of the Government and the circumstances of the time will mean that a great many people will be disturbed from their normal place of residence. For example, the direction of labour is apparently going to continue, the existence of flying squads, the lack of housing in some areas which will cause people to move to others, and the question of the re-allocation of industry in the conversion from wartime to peacetime production—all these matters may cause people to be disfranchised unless some kind of provision is made in this Bill. It would appear that this Amendment covers these cases, and that the consequential Amendment would avoid the difficulty of people having possibly two votes. I would, therefore, seriously ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this matter again before taking a final decision.

Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts: What we are asking for is not merely the greater exercise of the use of the vote. We want to achieve the result that a man can vote in a constituency in which his interest lies, and where he wants a voice in its representation. The absent voters' list does not achieve that a


man can vote in the constituency where his interest lies. The soldier when he goes on to the civilian register can be registered in the area where he is going to live, but assume that his wife, as is so often the case, is living with his mother in another constituency and goes to live in the new address with her husband, the result is that the wife has a vote in her old constituency and the soldier a vote in the new constituency. I think the point is involved that people should have a vote in the area where they have an interest, and I, therefore, ask the Minister if he will reconsider the matter.

Amendment negatived.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, after "of," insert "or was released from."
I think that it would be convenient to take together the Amendments:

In page 2, line 41, after "or," insert "ceased to be,"

In page 2, line 44, after "ceasing," insert "or being so released," and

In page 2, line 47, after "ceasing," insert "or being so released."

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to deal quite shortly with this point which emerges from the Bill in its present form? What is the position of those who are released under Class B, or on indefinite release, or on compassionate release with regard to the supplementary register? Are they to be deemed to be entitled to be put on the Service register? It may be difficult for them to be informed of their rights of making a declaration before the end of the year if they are members of the Forces. The difficulty with regard to the Clause is that people released under Class B are still, in one sense, members of the Forces, because if they do not take the work to which they are directed they are recalled to the Colours. I am sure it was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention to leave those released under Class B or released under any other conditions in a state of suspense, not knowing whether they came under Subsection (3) or Subsection (2), and it was with the intention of clarifying their position that we put down these Amendments. It would then be clear that those released under Class B would have to go on to

the civilian side of this supplementary register.

Mr. Ede: I am pleased to be able to give the hon. Member the assurances for which he asks. The people to whom he alluded, persons discharged under Class B or persons indefinitely released from the Forces, get an identity card under the National Registration Regulations, and where they get this card between 30th June and 31st December their names will be passed on to the electoral registrar for inclusion in the supplementary register, so that all those for whom he spoke will, in fact, get on to the supplementary register under the Clause as it is drafted.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am glad to have received that assurance, but in view of it I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and Report stage, whether it is apt to have the words ''cease to be a member of the Forces" when, in fact, anyone released under Class B or on indefinite release does not cease to be a member of the Forces. Would it not be better to put in "or was released" as a matter of drafting? The right hon. Gentleman may not want to give an opinion now, but in view of his assurance I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line I, leave out from "shall" to "secure" in line 2.
Under Subsection (4) of this Clause the registration officer has not the positive duty of securing that there is no duplication of entries in this supplementary register to the Service register and supplementary register to the civilian register. It is only provided that he shall, "so far as is reasonably practicable," secure that there is no duplication. Those words would appear to provide adequate cover for a multitude of errors and omissions on his part, and I can see no reason why they should be included when it is a question of securing that there is no duplication of entry in the supplementary register. It will not be a difficult thing for the registration officer for a constituency to look down his entries for his supplementary register and see that a person is not entered twice over. Therefore, with regard to that register, the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" are unnecessary.
Similarly, it must be a comparatively simple matter in a constituency to compare the Service register, which is in force now, with the Service part of the supplementary register, which will come into force in February of next year. We are comparing two lists of Servicemen and I should have thought that there again there was no reason why the registration officer should be given this protection for errors in a Statute. I agree that comparing entries on the supplementary register with entries on the civilian register is likely to cause considerable difficulty and may lead—one hopes it does not—to a number of errors of duplication. Therefore, in these Amendments on the Order Paper we have sought to provide that the registration officer should be under the positive duty of seeing there is no duplication between the Service register and the Service part of the supplementary register, and no duplication of entries in the supplementary register and, as far as is reasonably, practicable, that there is no duplication between the civilian register and the supplementary register. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, he would make a considerable improvement in the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Ede: I do not know what is to happen to a registration officer if these words are left out and then accidentally, through circumstances over which he has no real control—a duplicate entry actually occurs in the register.

Mr. Manningham - Buller: Nothing would happen.

Mr. Ede: There are no sanctions and I do not know that anyone could take action against him. If he malevolently left a person's name off the register that person, if he could prove malevolence, might have some action against him. I do not think that the putting of the name of a person on the register twice would involve any sanctions at all, either civil or criminal. It is impossible to lay down a definite requirement that there should be no duplication. A man may have been registered while in the Forces for a particular address. He returns to the same borough or constituency, but on discharge from the Forces he proceeds to another address and that is the one he gives to the national registration officer, who then sends his name and that address to the electoral registration officer, who enters

it on the supplementary register. It might be that the name goes on to a section of the register distinct from the one in which he has previously been registered.
Take what may be a very common case, that of a soldier who is registered, having given his own parents' address as the address in respect of which he wishes to be registered. He has been married, and as happens in so many cases at the moment, his wife is still living with her parents, and he decides that for the time being, immediately on discharge, he will go and live with her at her parents' house. Although it may be only a very short distance away, it may be very difficult, especially if the man has a name which is fairly common, for the registration officer to spot that the John Smith whose name is sent to him for this new address is the same John Smith who was registered for another address while in the Services. It would be rather foolish of a registration officer to strike the name off the first address because he had got a duplicate name on some other part of the register.
Practical reasons like that make it impossible to make this duty mandatory and absolute on the returning officer. When this Bill becomes law we shall issue a circular to registration officers, asking them to exercise all the ingenuity they can in an attempt to prevent duplication, because nobody wants a swollen register. I hope that they will be successful in keeping duplication down to a minimum, but I would not like to put on them an obligation which might in certain places lead to a person being inadvertently struck off because he happens to have the same name as someone who had made a claim to go on the supplementary register.

Mr. Peake: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and in view of the fact that this supplementary register will only be in force for elections between 1st March next year and the ensuing 15th October, we shall not object if, as a result of this Subsection, some Servicemen, many of whom were deprived of a vote at the last Election, get two votes at a by-election.

Mr. Ede: In protection of the ex-Servicemen I would say that while their name may be twice on the register, there will be serious trouble for them if they


seek to exercise both in an election, though I doubt if many of them would be tempted to do so.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Extension of facilities for voting as a civilian absent voter.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, leave out "area," and insert "polling district."
This Amendment, which appears to be a very simple one, raises a point of considerable importance. Under Clause 6 as it now stands any one who satisfies the registration officer that he no longer resides at the address in respect of which he is so registered, or at any other address within the same area, is entitled to have his name placed upon the absent voters' list. When one wishes to see what is meant by the words "within the same area" one must turn to Clause 20 of the Bill where one see that:
…two addresses shall be deemed to be within the same area if they satisfy one of the following conditions that …
they are both within the combined area of two contiguous metropolitan boroughs;
'' they are both within the area of the same county borough;
they are both within the area of the same non-county borough;
they are both within the area of the same urban district; or
'' they are both within the area of the same rural parish.
It seems to me that that interpretation of the word "area" is bound to lead to a whole series of anomalies. A man may have just moved from one rural parish to another, and be living 50 yards away from his previous address. If he applies he will be entitled to vote by post.
9.15 p.m.
But a man who is living in Birmingham who will move from one end of Birmingham to the other may not acquire the facilities of postal voting. I would suggest that, instead of making this very complicated definition of area, the right place to draw the line in considering who

should get the facilities of voting by post and of being put on the absent voters' list, and the right area to define is the polling district. If a man in a country constituency, when living in one polling district, moves his home to another polling district, it may be in the same constituency, and he may be many miles away from the place where he should exercise his right of voting. Therefore, I think that that gentleman should have the right of being put on the absent voters' list. The same would apply wherever you like to take the "situation, and surely the polling district is the right area, and no other. If a man moves out of the polling district in which he is registered, what is the argument against that man not being put on the absent voters' list, no matter whether he has moved from one contiguous borough to another one, or from one end of the borough to the far end of another which is contiguous? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider or state if he is in a position to do so, what valid arguments there are against the adoption of the polling district as the area instead of the definition. he has given in Clause 20.

Mr. Ede: I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in dealing with this matter, dealt in the way he did with the question of rural voters, because I think the definition in the Bill of a rural parish is likely to be more advantageous to some rural voters than the words "polling district" because in my knowledge there are some constituencies in the country where more than one rural parish is included in a polling district and, quite frankly, I think this is a concession which is more necessary in rural areas than for movements inside boroughs where, as a rule, means of public transport are reasonably good and I should not be prepared, in any event, as far as rural voters arc concerned, to use the definition of "polling district" instead of "rural parish."
When it comes to the other areas, if I there accepted "polling district," one might be involved in having to register really a very large number of quite frivolous claims for a postal vote. In boroughs, as a rule, the ward, or a part of the ward, is the polling district. There are 14 wards in the borough of South Shields, which I represent, and the total acreage is under 3,000 acres. Some of the wards are very small indeed, and as


the migration is as great as it is at the moment, I am sure we should be involved in a considerable amount of registration for postal voting if the "polling district" was taken as the appropriate phrase. I cannot think that, because a person moves from an area of 100 acres into another area of 100 acres adjoining it, it gives him a right to claim a postal vote, and that the returning officers should be put to all the difficulties which arise when a postal vote is registered.
It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) stated, that the words are not part of the Act, but it will be noted that Clause 6 has above it the heading in italics, "Temporary Provisions as to Voting by Post and by Proxy." This question of the appropriate area for the exercise of postal voting will be one of the matters which will be considered by the Committee on Electoral Registration of my hon. Friend. I hope that they will make some recommendations that will enable this question to be very closely examined by people—agents and others—who are on the Committee and who have considerable knowledge of these matters. I would therefore hope that we might be allowed to use the present definition, which is undoubtedly more helpful to rural voters in the most scattered parts of the country, than the definition given by the hon. Gentleman, and when we produce our permanent legislation we may hope that we shall have had the benefit of this expert advice and be able to put before the House something which will be generally acceptable.

Mr. E. P. Smith: In regard to Clause 20 defining the areas concerned, what is meant by "parish" in paragraph (e)? What do the words "rural parish" really mean? Is it an ecclesiastical parish or a parish council?

The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member cannot go into that definition now.

Mr. Ede: I will deal with it when I come to it.

Mr. E. P. Smith: With great respect, Clause 20 has been brought up in relation to this Amendment, and I submit that we are entitled to know what is meant by the phrase.

The Chairman: I understood that the hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation of something on Clause 20. It is not in Order to do so on a discussion of Clause 6.

Mr. Ede: We shall get to it in due course.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I beg to move, in line 5, at end, insert:
(2) If any person, registered in a. civilian residence register as a parliamentary elector for any constituency, satisfies the registration officer on an application made within the period and in the manner prescribed by electoral registration regulations that he will probably be unable, without making a journey by sea or air, to proceed from the address in respect of which he is registered in that register to a polling place in order to vote in person at any parliamentary election for which that register will be used, the registration officer shall enter the name of that person in the absent voters list for the purposes of every parliamentary election for which that register is used.
This Amendment is to enable people who would otherwise have to cross the sea to record their votes, to get over that difficulty. In this Bill we are enabling people who are physically incapacitated or blind to exercise their votes, and I think an equally strong case can be made for enabling people who are, as I might put it, geographically incapacitated. The situation is that in some of the island constituencies there are polling districts with more than one island in them, and the result has been that many of the electors in these areas, although theoretically enfranchised, have never in fact been able to record their votes because of the difficulty of getting to the polling place. It might be thought that this difficulty could be overcome by setting up more polling places, but I think we have gone as far along that road as is practicable. Sooner or later we will get a situation in which there is only a comparatively small number of people, and it is now becoming difficult in some of these rural areas to find people who are suitably qualified to preside at a polling booth. It is also difficult to get people to undertake a journey across, in one case 16 miles, and in another case 25 miles, with the possibility of not being able to get back for several days, and in some cases even for


several weeks. The only practical way of getting over the difficulty is to allow those people to have their names on the absent voters' list, and to let them vote by post or by proxy.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I must confess to a great deal of sympathy for the Amendment. This is not altogether a new problem, but could have been solved years ago by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were on this side of the House. They were then on the winning side and they were not interested very much in voters unless they favoured themselves. I am very glad, as a fellow Islander Member, to support a number of the suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. We must have regard to the less selfish implications of the Amendment, but the fact of the matter is simply stated; the hon. and gallant Member opposite and his Friends have for many years themselves disfranchised these people by neglecting to provide proper roads and means of communication. I suggest that they should now go all out to remedy these defects in our transport system and they should support us, who are endeavouring to help our electors to make more effective their theoretical franchise.
We have a genuine case, and the hon. and gallant Member has as genuine a case as anyone, and I welcome the Amendment. I have as many voters in my constituency as he has in his, who are disfranchised for geographical reasons. Many of the places where they live are cut off by miles of sea, by heavy seas and narrow sounds and it is sometimes almost impossible for them to cast their votes. There are not only isles but peninsulas from which electors have to go by sea, and they are just as cut off because they have no roads and they do not always manage to get away because of the bad weather by sea. It is suggested that they should be allowed to vote by post and the suggestion should certainly be considered favourably by my right hon. Friend.
There is one point on which I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member, and that is when he says that we have gone far enough in the matter of supplying polling stations. I do not think that we have gone nearly far enough. There

are places miles apart, with schools between them which could serve the purpose of polling stations, but the schools are neglected for this use and people have to go many miles from their homes to the polling stations and back. Polling facilities should be made as equitable as possible. I do not think that a person in the Shetlands, the Orkneys or the Western Isles should have to go to additional expense, discomfort and risk in exercising his right and his duty to register his vote. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter very sympathetically, and if he feels he cannot accept it, and at the same time save face with the other side of the House, may I remind him that there are many of us on this side who are anxious that he should accept it and possibly save our faces at the same time as his own?

9.30 p.m.

Major McCallum: I support my hon. and gallant Friend in this Amendment. May I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) invariably opens his remarks with some reference to previous Tory Governments? May I point out to him that the Highlands and Islands of Scotland were almost the sole areas in Britain that returned only Conservative or Liberal National Members, and that that was true in all cases except that of the hon. Member himself? They showed their good sense. I would like to include under this Amendment not only island constituencies but certain places on the mainland of Scotland where people have difficulty in getting to the poll and can only do so by making long journeys by water. I know of a place where there are, I think, 11 or 12 voters who never go to the polls because they have to travel 10 or 15 miles by water. They are thereby to all intents and purposes disfranchised. I therefore submit that not only the people on the islands, but also those on the mainland who are geographically disabled, should be incorporated in the supplementary register. There are several areas in the Highlands of Scotland where the same thing applies.
In the constituency which I represent there was an island from which the voters had to make a very rough sea journey of 14 miles to vote, and my predecessor, at the time of the much-maligned Tory majority, was able to get a polling station


placed there. In the smaller islands I am referring to it would be impracticable to set up polling stations, and in view of the difficult journeys the electors have to take, and the bad weather in which they might have to take them, they ought to be allowed to be put on the supplementary register.

Mr. Fraser: When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper, I first made inquiry as to whether additional polling stations could be set up. I was advised that it was not practicable to set up polling stations in all these scattered islands, and that to do so would involve too great a risk, because on many occasions it might be impossible, because of the stress of weather, to collect the ballot boxes on polling day. I, therefore, inquired whether I could possibly accept this Amendment, and in view of the speeches to which we have just listened, and of the fact that there is a considerable consensus of opinion in favour of extending postal voting to the people of these islands, I think I should give way. I would, however, indicate to the Committee that we could not guarantee that in every case it would be possible to get the ballot paper delivered, again because of the weather conditions that sometimes prevail. I think however that many more people would be able to vote if we accepted the Amendment than would otherwise be the case, and I have therefore pleasure in accepting it.

Mr. C. Williams: I rise to thank the Government for accepting the Amendment. We have heard the Scottish case but not the English case, because the hon. Member who would have put that case is ill. I am not going to make a long political speech, as did the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. Macmillan). I just want to say that I appreciate the effect of this change, which will enable the people of the Scilly Isles, who are the most hard working and industrious of the Islanders throughout Great Britain, to vote and to go on returning to Parliament good supporters of the Liberal Nationalists or of the Tory Party.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 5, line II, after "physically," insert "either by blindness or otherwise."
I think it would be convenient to deal also with the two Amendments in my name, in page 5, line 15, and page 5, line 17. These Amendments are largely of a drafting nature and are necessary in order that Subsection (2) may clearly specify the category of persons who are eligible for a postal vote by reason of physical incapacity. It will be found that the words I propose to insert bring in rather than exclude people. They define the matter rather more closely. I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept these Amendments as another instance of our effort to bring within the facilities for voting people who, through no fault of their own, but through serious physical disability, would be otherwise deprived of the franchise.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, leave out "parliamentary."
As the other five Amendments in my name on this Clause cover the same point, I think it would be convenient to deal with them together. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has been in a conciliatory mood this evening, and as a result our business is proceeding most expeditiously. These Amendments raise a point which even those few hon. Members who have not followed closely the intricacies of the various Acts of Parliament and the Amendments on the Order Paper will be able to understand. Subsection (2) of this Clause provides for additional facilities for the physically incapacitated and the blind to cast their votes at a Parliamentary election. It does not seem unreasonable that similar facilities for the bedridden and the blind might be extended to local government elections. Why on earth this Amendment could or should be resisted, I cannot imagine. It would be quite illogical to give a bedridden or blind person postal voting facilities to enable him to cast his vote for a Member of Parliament, but to deny him those facilities in the case of the election of a local councillor.

Mr. Ede: I have every sympathy with this Amendment, and therefore, I very much regret that I cannot accept it because there is no machinery provided in the Bill by which postal voting at municipal elections could be operated. With regard to postal voting at Parliamentary elections, specific duties are placed upon


returning officers and other people to ensure that the voting papers are sent out, that when they are returned they are treated in a certain way, and that they are then incorporated in the total votes to be counted, and become part of the voice of the electorate. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate that there is no similar machinery for dealing with municipal elections. This part of the Bill is a temporary part, and this is one of the matters that I am going to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to bring before his Committee, with a view to getting the appropriate recommendations made so that we can place a duty on returning officers in municipal elections to allow people who are incapacitated in this way to perform the duty of citizenship by recording their votes.
I think there is even more cause for allowing people in this position to record their votes than there is in the case of people who have left a constituency and moved to another. Such people have probably lost interest in the place from which they have gone, whereas these bedridden and blind people are often almost bound to remain in the place where they are, even against their wishes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is an entirely practical objection that I am taking to this Amendment, and that it is my hope and my intention that the permanent Measure shall include provisions whereby incapacitated people shall be able to vote at municipal elections. I hope that, when we get the permanent Measure in front of us, I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's support in carrying it through.

Mr. Peake: In view of the sympathetic response which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and the very real, practical difficulties, which I appreciate, of constructing machinery for a temporary period in relation to the casting of votes in this way at a local government election, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 5, line 15, leave out from the first "that," to "he," in line 16, and insert:
he is so incapacitated physically, either by blindness or otherwise, that.

In page 5, line 17, leave out from "by," to the first "the," in line 18.—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Extension of right of service voter's proxy to vote by post.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, after "register," insert:
or, as the case may be, on the supplementary register.''
This Amendment is necessary to make clear that the right of voting by post under the Clause is conferred, not only upon the proxies of Service voters who are registered in the Service register, published as part of the annual register, but also upon the proxies of Service voters registered in the supplementary register prepared under Clause 3. I am sure that the Committee will feel that these words should be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Temporary provisions as to jurors books.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 8, line I, to leave out, "books," and insert "book."
This drafting Amendment is necessary because there can be only one jurors' book in the City of London in any one year, and to allude to this book in the plural would be a mistake.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Application and adaptation of enactments.)

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 11, line 40, leave out "the preparation and publication of."
These words are unnecessary and might lead to considerable confusion if they were retained.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burden: I hope the Home Secretary will forgive me for raising at this late hour a question which is of considerable importance to local government officers. In the Representation of the People Act of 1945, to which reference is made in this Clause, there is provision under Section 34 for compensation to local government officers in the event of loss of superannuation rights. I ask the Home Secretary, is there similar provision in this Clause and, if not, will he look at that matter between now and the Report Stage. I am sure he would desire that that should be construed as part of this Bill also.

Mr. Ede: I regret that on a point of such detail as that, I cannot give an answer without notice, but I will look into the point between now and the Report Stage and see if it is necessary to take any action.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE I7.—(Financial provisions.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 12, line 45, leave out "duties," and insert "functions."
I notice that several hon. and learned Gentlemen are laughing. I suppose they feel that I have spotted one of those points out of which considerable legal fortunes have been made in the past. This is a drafting Amendment necessary in order to keep the language of the Subsection uniform. Having regard to the use of the word ''functions'' in line 6 of Subsection (2), by putting the same word in both places we ensure that there shall be no doubt about the meaning.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Approval of regulations by Parliament.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move in page 13, line 6, leave out "should," and insert "shall."
This is something more than a point of grammar but it is largely a drafting change, and it is required because it is, of course, intended that the laying of

jurors book regulations before Parliament shall be mandatory. I was once sitting on the bench when a lady took the oath in this form: "The evidence I shall give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." I do not desire to place myself in the same convenient position in which the witness was endeavouring to place herself.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Peake: The last Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman has drawn my eye to the offending words "as soon as may be" in line 7. Already on one occasion this evening the right hon. Gentleman has surmounted those words by substituting the word "immediately." I wonder whether between now and the Report Stage he would consider making his Bill thoroughly consistent by making the same substitution in this Clause?

Mr. Ede: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the Committee when the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) moved the previous Amendment on this point. I explained then that while this Government was in office I should regard "as soon as may be" and "immediately" as synonymous. I realise that it is desirable, even here, to be consistent, and I will therefore consider whether I should move "as soon as may be" back into the Bill in the earlier place or put "immediately" in here.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Saving for university elections.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, after "proxy," insert:
except those provisions which relate to the application of Part IV of the Act of 1945
This Amendment is necessary because the Clause as it now stands excludes university constituencies from all the registration and voting provisions of the Bill. This exclusion is too wide since the provisions for extending the postal voting in a General Election shall contain Part IV of the Representation of the People Act, 1945—and are continued by Clause 8—and are effective in respect of


university elections. Accordingly, the Amendment exempts those provisions from that portion of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20.—(Addresses within the same area.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 13, line 38, after "London," insert:
or of any metropolitan borough contiguous thereto.
This is a drafting Amendment which is necessary in order to make quite clear that two addresses, one in the City and the other in a contiguous metropolitan borough, respectively, would rank as being in the combined area of two contiguous metropolitan boroughs.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. P. Smith: I rise to repeat a question which I put earlier and which the right hon. Gentleman said he would answer when we reached Clause 20. I should be grateful if he would tell us the legal definition of the words "rural parish" used in paragraph (e) in this connection.

Mr. Ede: I cannot answer for Scotland in this matter because their local government is so different from ours. But this Parliament does occasionally deal with Scottish matters, and I would not like some Scottish Members to intervene to say that my definition was inadequate as applying to that country. If there is any Scottish point, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will deal with it. A rural parish in England and Wales is an area covered either by a parish council or a parish meeting. It is a civil parish and not an ecclesiastical one. I think the definition is given in the Local Government Act, 1933. It is any area that has a parish council or, if its population is not sufficient to have a parish council, has a parish meeting. Such an area is regarded as a parish for the purposes of this Bill.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Inerpreation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir William Darling: I would ask for enlightenment on the following interpretation in this Clause:
war worker's declaration 'means a declaration which is a war worker's declaration.
There is reference to it also in Clause 3 (2). It seems to me that we are getting away from the war and although a war worker's declaration may be valuable enough during war time, is it likely to be of any value in this Bill?

Mr. Ede: War workers are people who were displaced in order to perform certain work during the war. That is as clear a definition as any, I think, ever found in an Act of Parliament. The Act under which they were allowed to claim to be registered remains in existence, and we desire that these people should still be allowed to exercise the franchise, although they cannot do so under the ordinary law of the land. I think it would be very wrong to deprive these people of the franchise, merely because the definition —happily—now begins to sound a little ridiculous. I hope that when we have the permanent legislation, it will be possible to make some arrangement whereby people who are working abroad and in similar circumstances may be admitted to the franchise, if they can be associated with a residential qualification in this country.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Application to Scotland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: If an earlier Amendment had been accepted the Amendment which my hon. Friend and I have on the Paper to leave out Subsection (3) of this Clause would have been consequential and in Order, but as it is it does give notice to the right hon. Gentleman of the point which we wish to raise. Clause 22 (3) takes out, with regard to Scotland, all references to the rural parishes and so on, and inserts a reference instead to an electoral division of a county. I rather think that an electoral division is a constituency. I do not think it is a polling


district. If I am wrong, perhaps I shall be corrected. If it is a constituency, then this is quite out of line with the policy expressed by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to England. It is far too big a division. Quite obviously one constituency stretching from Inverness burgh to the other end of the Isle of Skye—

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Local government constituency.

Mr. Reid: That means within a Parliamentary constituency of a county. I am not sure what happens to those who are in the remoter rural districts. It is all right in the more closely populated districts, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us what the position will be in a rural parish when we come to deal with the more scattered populations of the North and West.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: The county council electoral division is, invariably, a lesser area than the parish in the most sparsely populated parts of Scotland, and I think hon. Members who live in those sparsely populated parts will agree that the area within which the provision of the postal vote would not apply, is a lesser area than the actual parish.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23, 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule (Modification of Section Twenty-three of Act of 1918.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page I6, line 37, after "register," insert "or supplementary register."
I think it would be as well if at the same time, we considered a similar Amendment in line 10, on page 17. These Amendments are required because the facilities for voting by proxy conferred by Clause 6 are conferred not only on persons registered in the civilian residents' register, but also on persons registered as civilian voters in the supplementary register.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 10, after "register," insert "or supplementary register."—[Mr. Ede.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

INSHORE FISHING INDUSTRY BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendment.

Ordered:

"That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[Mr. Collick.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to extend period for making grants and loans.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 2, line 30, leave out "forty," and insert "four."

10.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will be familiar with the procedure which is followed when a Bill gives a Minister the power to make an Order. Under that procedure the Order is laid before Parliament, and if Parliament so decides within a period of forty days that Order can be annulled. There is a standard provision which is adopted in all Bills of this kind which reads as follows:
And in reckoning the said period of forty-days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
Unfortunately and regrettably, instead of the word "four" days being in the Bill, through some clerical or printer's error, the word "forty" appeared. The Amendment merely seeks to put in the correct word, which is "four," instead of "forty," which is printed in the Bill.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home- Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Stockport, a copy of which Order was presented on 27th November, be approved.—[Mr. Oliver.]

GOVERNMENT SURPLUS STORES (DISPOSAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Since I gave notice that I would raise the matter of the disposal of Government surplus stores the Government have done their best to take any sting out of the subject, which I might have been able to impart into this Debate. I had intended specifically to refer to the stocks held by local authorities on behalf of the Ministry of Health and to deal with them in some detail, but the Minister of Health forestalled me last week by issuing an order to all local authorities to get rid of those goods to the public as soon as possible. This new arrangement will give great satisfaction not only to the local authorities, who were getting very worried in view of deterioration, but also to the general public, who, as we all know full well, badly want blankets, mattresses, pillow-cases and the hundred and one household articles that are in those rest centres, A.R.P. dumps and stores all over the country. In some areas the situation was assuming the nature of a public scandal. In Warwickshire a member of the county council is reported to have said,' of the stocks belonging to the Ministry of Health, that rats were in the mattresses and moths in the blankets. I have not the slightest doubt that many of these goods all over the country have deteriorated considerably during the last few years. Now that the Minister of Health has ceased his procrastination, I hope that these local authorities will lose no time in getting these goods into the hands of the public.
But that is only one small part of this problem. I want to deal now with the vast stocks of surplus war stores, quite apart from the Ministry of Health stocks, which are lying in dumps, as we know in every part of this country. I have had many letters of complaint, not only of the inability of would-be purchasers to obtain these goods, but also of the wanton destruction which is taking place. I would like to quote three small extracts. These are all very reputable firms and I have no reason at all to doubt the accuracy of their statements. The first one says:

Last week we saw a lorry from the Depot at Castle Ashby, No. L.4563111, which had a front mudguard slightly dented, otherwise we were told that the vehicle was in perfect condition. That was a Bedford Lorry of the type we use in our business, but we were told that because of the dented mudguard, the lorry had to be scrapped. We are informed that many lorries in really good condition are being scrapped, and we fail to see why this most unnecessary wastage of good material should be allowed to occur.
The second one is from a firm of engineers. It states:
I visited the Bristol Aircraft Factory at Clayton-le-Moors, near Accrington, to buy machine tools. The whole of the machine equipment has been removed for destruction. I picked several machines out for purchase, instructed my broker to secure them, I have paid three visits this month, they are still there, still un priced and still no finality. In the stores I could see them opening paper packets of precision tools, including Carbide Tips, which cost £32 per pound. They shed the lot into a truck which I followed to the heat treating department, where heat was wasted to destroy them. The trade want these tools, to buy new both price and delivery are still prohibitive.
The third is from a firm of building contractors:
For six months I have been trying to obtain Winget mortar mixer, and a four ton lorry and a Priestman cub digger valued at about £1,000. From time to time I have approached the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Supply and other Ministries, only with the result of being advised to apply to T. C. Jones of Shepherds Bush who are their agents for disposal. These people can only supply me with new appliances under a Government permit, and deliver in six months' time. In fact, it is impossible to obtain anything lying about at these dumps which we have inspected, such as at Hatfield where there is at least a million pounds worth of goods.
These extracts give some indication of the frustration which is felt by people who really want these goods, and who are prepared to buy them. In the plans for the disposal of Government surplus stores, which was issued as a White Paper in 1944, these goods were divided into three categories. The class to which I am making reference is Class C, which is described as manufacturing stores suitable for or convertible to civilian use. Of course, it includes a great variety of articles, as the White Paper says, from road rollers to great coats and from trucks to typewriters. Speaking in the previous year the then President of the Board of Trade said that there must be an orderly disposal of these goods, that there must be no profiteering on the one hand, and that due regard must be paid to the interests


of manufacturers and distributors. No one would quarrel with those two stipulations. Many of us here can remember what happened after the last war, when there was a lot of profiteering, and when the market was also flooded. The White Paper goes on to say that the general principles to be followed in the disposal of these goods are that they are to be released fast enough to get into the hands of the consumers when they are required, and to avoid adverse effects on production through flooding the market. We all know that if the whole of these goods were put on the market today there could be no adverse effects on production, because there is no production of them. As to the point that they are to be released fast enough to get them into the hands of the consumer when they are required, that, to me, is simply farcical. They have been required for some time past.
Three weeks ago I put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade to ask him the value of sales of Government surplus stores. I was fobbed off with a most ambiguous answer. It completely evaded the question. All I was told was I hat the value of surplus stores was in excess of £20 million. I was not told the value of the surplus stores that had been sold. It is more than two years ago now since the Surplus Textile Corporation was set up, in conjunction with the Board of Trade. to deal with and sell certain categories of surplus goods. The members of that organisation were led to believe that soon after the war they would be dealing with millions of pounds worth of goods. What really has happened, is that up to a very recent date, all they have dealt with was 34,000 reject khaki jerseys, a few red stockings, and half a million industrial overalls. I understand that other corporations have been set up to deal with surplus goods. I do not know what they are, and it would be interesting to know how much they have dealt with up to date. But—I imagine as a result of recent publicity and there has been a lot of publicity over this matter recently—it was announced that the Board of Trade were releasing 239,000 white hospital blankets and they were going to be sold to the Surplus Textiles Corporation. An official of that body next day said they knew nothing about it until they saw it in the evening paper. He went on to say:
This is typical of the muddled and dilatory way in which the release of millions of

pounds worth of goods is being handled. No private organisation, however big, would dare to leave such a wealth of consumer goods for which there is such an urgent demand, lying about unused and deteriorating.
Last year the Board of Trade said they had several new plans, and in the Press today new plans were announced. Frankly, I could not see any difference between the new plans and the old plans. Presumably, they are going to be disposed of through the same sources, but I did see that they intend to set up an official disposal commission and the Government's spokesman told the Press conference what I was very surprised to learn, that he wanted to remove an erroneous opinion that Government Departments were holding back vast quantities. I am sure we are of sufficient intelligence to know that these goods are being held back. We all know of cases in our own constituencies where there are dumps of goods, some of them deteriorating month by month and no effort is made to move them, or even to sell them.
I would like to know from the Minister whether in fact there is any departure from the principle of the White Paper with regard to the selling of these goods in the future. I know that under the White Paper the Ministry of Supply were responsible for the sorting, catalogueing, and assembling and for making the contracts of sale and I know that the Board of Trade were responsible for fixing the prices, and deciding on the rate of sale. I would like to know whether there has been any change there and also the value of sales in this country up to a recent date, and what positive steps are being taken to speed up release. The public are rightly disturbed. They look upon the handling of this matter as inept and lackadaisical; they are horrified to hear of the waste of goods, that are rotting away, and that public money is being treated as if it were of no consequence. In my opinion this is only one more instance of the present Government's complete inability to tackle the problems which face this country.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I have listened with great enjoyment to the hon. Gentleman who has raised this question, but I wonder what he meant by constantly referring all the way through his rambling speech to "goods." He has mentioned about three items. I could mention 103 if there were time in


this brief Debate. For him to keep on referring to "goods," without defining what it is he wants to get on to the market, is hardly helpful to the House or to the nation. We know that there are dumps such as those to which he has referred. What we are anxious about arises from the announcement made by the Ministry of Health, which is not a Board of Trade Department at all, that blankets and commodities out of stores to which he has referred, are coming on the market in the next day or two. We hope that they will not go to men's sisters, cousins, aunts and other relatives, but that they will be legitimately distributed through commercial undertakings and stores. If the hon. Gentleman had told us what specific goods he had in mind, it would have been more helpful. I hope he will have another opportunity later on, because I am sure that he is hardly helping the Minister to give us the kind of information for which we are waiting.

10.22 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I feel that this is the kind of Debate which we are going to have increasingly in the future. His Majesty's Government, rightly or wrongly, have pledged themselves to the collectivisation of our industry, and we are now embarking on a series of difficulties and problems with which countless thousands of business men have been familiar every day of their lives. The Government have produced, very successfully, masses of commodities of all sorts and descriptions necessary for the war effort, and they are unable, apparently, to deal with the disposal of the commodities which are now surplus. The reason is that they are rather afraid of what they think was the mismanagement of this problem at the end of the last war. I am not among those who agree that there was mismanagement. The late Lord Melchett was at the head of the Commission, and in 18 months he disposed of the commodities which were surplus at the end of the last war. Many people made a lot of money out of them; that was no crime. Many people got a great deal of advantage out of them; that was a great public service. If I had to choose between the present attitude of doleful dumps, which is the present Government's attitude towards them, and the helter-skelter distribution which took

place at the end of the last war, I know where I and the public would prefer to put our support.
The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. S. Shephard) was asked what he specifically-had in mind. I venture to say that the public of this country are hungry for almost any commodity. The shops, warehouses and factories are empty. We are anxious to buy anything, so hard up are we for goods. I will give some details of what I and hundreds of like people such as merchants and owners of factories, would be willing to buy. I have been trying to get filing cabinets, for example, during the last year. They are very much in demand. There are in the possession of His Majesty's Government mountains of filing cabinets which are used for filing documents of no importance. The manufacturers are not allowed to make them for me, and I am not allowed to get them from Government disposal boards. Is there any other item which the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. E. Walkden) would like to know? I have been looking for a comptometer during the last five years. What have I had to do? I have had to pay £I a month for the hire of a comptometer; I am not allowed to buy one because of the regulations of the Board of Trade. In shame the man from whom I hired the comptometer said to me, "You had better have it now. You have paid for it several times over" There are thousands of comptometers in Government Departments.
Does the hon. Member for Doncaster want any more particulars? I can give him further examples. Arising from the ill-advised efforts of the Ministry of Food, all up and down the country very expensive canteen equipment was imposed upon local authorities. They were only prepared to take it because the Government, through the Ministry of Food, guaranteed them against loss. Lots of us want to start canteens now for our expanding businesses, because the people coming back from the war have been accustomed to these services in the factories, but we cannot get them. I can name three businesses that cannot get canteen equipment, which is, however, lying idle, rusting and unused in Government Departments. Does the hon. Member for Doncaster want any more examples? I could give him a number. I will, however, move from the subject.

Mr. E. Walkden: Will the hon. Member give us a few more? He has only mentioned three items. Do let him tell us what he wants. I could mention 153.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member will have his opportunity. He is closely associated with the Minister and has the Minister's ear. Let him impart his great knowledge to the Minister, and I shall be grateful, as well as the Minister. I am not concerned with this aspect of the matter at the moment, but with other Departments, and particularly with the extravagances of the Ministry of Food.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that the Minister has only a very few minutes left in which to reply.

Sir W. Darling: I have a very heavy subject to deal with, and I was —[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."] I am advised, Mr. Speaker, to finish what I am saying. I am glad that I resisted the temptation of following the hon. Member for Don-caster, who wanted me to give a catalogue of things, and that might have been out of Order. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. These stores are not confined to the articles mentioned by me or by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. They include many other stores, including food in tins and cartons, which are not only becoming wasted but are occupying in warehouses valuable space which could be used for other purposes. I hope that on this general question, consideration will be given to the inability, and I hope it is only a passing one, on the part of Government Departments to handle these matters. The Government have committed themselves to a programme of collectivisation. Let them learn the simple elementary rules of business, which any small shopkeeper would be only too glad to teach them.

10.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary' Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Ellis Smith): The most disappointed man in this House now is myself. I had gone to a lot of trouble so as to be able to give the hon. Member who raised this matter some satisfaction, but I cannot do so within the seven minutes that are left to me, as the time is not sufficient to deal with such a big subject. When the hon. Member says that he will be raising the subject on numerous occasions in future, I can say that we shall welcome it being raised at

any time. The hon. Member fully supported the White Paper when the Debate took place, as he will see if he refers to Hansard of 25th July, 1944, in cols. 687 and 688. He will find there the speech that he made, fully supporting the White Paper. Hon. Members will also see that on the same occasion I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of our party and that we welcomed the fullest investigation into this matter. The hon. Member said that the Government had done their best to take the sting out of the Debate. I do not blame him for saying that and 1 can well understand it, but I can assure him that the steps taken by the Government were not taken just because this Debate was going to take place. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Health have been dealing with this matter for weeks, in consultation with other Government Departments. As a result of those consultations the circular referred to was issued and steps had already been taken to bring about an improvement.
In regard to the new plans, what has happened is that there is an adaptation of the White Paper, based upon our experience and the lessons that we have learned. I would remind hon. Members that it is only four months since the war finished. During that period, as a result of the experience gained, plans had already been made to apply the lessons that have been learned. The hon. Gentle man has made charges about wanton destruction. I ask for the co-operation of all Members of the House in this, and I would say that if they can make any specific charges of this description we will gladly look into them—

Sir W. Darling: We are not your local Gestapo.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I think that is a most ungenerous observation. It is not the sort of remark that is usually made by hon. Members of this House when they are asked to co-operate in matters of this kind. We all have public interest at heart and are usually prepared to do our duty to the public in order to safeguard the interests of our people and to safeguard public property. There is only one personal point I am going to make. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) spoke about business people and business policy. Let me make it clear that I was brought up in big-scale industry in this


country and, as a result of that experience, I say we take second place to no business people, with regard to organising and running matters of this kind.

Sir W. Darling: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a true saying, and by their fruits the country knew the works of the last Government and showed that knowledge at the last General Election. Returning to the point about wanton destruction, I repeat that if any hon. Members of this House can give any specific instances we shall gladly look into them. With regard to machine tools, we have already received a letter from a right hon. Member, and are making an investigation into the matter. With regard to dumps, I myself have felt uneasy about them. As one travels about the country and sees these huge dumps, many of them in the open air, and deteriorating as a result of the weather, one has reason to be very much concerned about them. But in this matter all should do their duty, and as far as the Government are concerned, we shall have these dumps surveyed from time to time. We have other Government Departments to deal with, when considering these matters, especially Service departments, because the international situation is still fairly serious, and we are bound to have regard to that. If we receive any complaints, I will give an undertaking that they will be investigated as quickly as possible in order that we can avoid the mistakes of the past.
Unfortunately, I cannot deal with the matter more adequately tonight, but no one would have been more pleased than I to do so if I had the opportunity. I had gone to great trouble today to go into this question with all the people concerned, in order to arm myself adequately to deal with the case. What I will do is this. If there is no improvement in the situation—and even accepting what the hon. and gallant Member has said, if there is no improvement from his point of view or from the point of view of any other hon. Member—and if the question is raised again within a reason-

able time, I will try to give them an answer, telling them about the plans prepared, and how we have adapted the White Paper in order to take advantage of our experiences, so that we can do our best to safeguard national property in this country. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and I always did feel that not enough justice was done to the reports of that Committee. In the ninth report a recommendation was made which has been put into operation; that the final choice of a disposal department and a negotiating department for each class of goods should be made as soon as possible. In addition to that, the circular sent out by the Ministry of Heal this a big step in the right direction. All that I am hoping is that the local authorities, when they carry this out, will see that there is a minimum of inconvenience to our people, and that the goods get to the people as quickly as possible. Our people have suffered long enough. We have strained ourselves in this country, and hon. Members can depend on it that this Government, representing the people, composed of men born of the people, will look after the people's interest to the very best possible advantage.

Mr. Shephard: Before the hon Gentleman sits down, will he answer the specific question I put to him as to the value of the surplus goods that the Government have disposed of in this country up to a recent date. Why was I fobbed off with a very ambiguous answer when I put the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member was given an answer. I think—I am speaking from memory now—it was £20,000,000. Since then there has been an increase.

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. SPEAKER' adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order made upon 16th August.

Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.